Month: February 2009

Law, the Working Life, and Innovation

Recently I’ve enjoyed reading some thoughtful posts offering different takes on the working life in law—how to make it more meaningful, or at least how to survive. In particular, I’m thinking of Vickie Pynchon’s posts tracking how she picked herself up and dusted herself off after being laid off in 1992; click here for the first in the series. And … Read More

A New Term Is Born—”Backending”

In MSCD 3.57, I use the term “frontloading” for the process of pulling select information out of the body of the contract and placing it at the top of the contract. In MSCD 3.63 I acknowledge that instead of frontloading information, you could put it in a schedule. Some contracts—including one I’m reviewing at the moment—are aggressive about that, in … Read More

My NYLJ Article on Retooling Your Contract Process for the Downturn

The New York Law Journal has published, in its “GC New York” section, my article entitled “Retooling Your Contract Process for the Downturn.” Click here to go to a nifty PDF reprint and click here to go to the online version (free registration required). I suspect you’ll find that a hard copy of the reprint is easier to read than … Read More

“Shall”—Once More Unto the Breach

I’ve learned that Twitter can serve as an early-warning system. Thanks to a Twitter update by Lance Goddard—he of the blog Are You Writing This Down—I learned that Jay Shepherd had posted on his blog The Client Revolution this item recommending that you run a mile from shall. I took the liberty of posting this comment on Jay’s blog saying … Read More

Free Time in Houston on Feb. 25

On Wednesday, February 25, I’ll be in Houston, cooling my heels between seminars. If you’re in the Houston area and you’d like to meet with me to discuss what I do and whether I might be able to assist your organization, don’t hesitate to contact me.

“In Accordance With” and “According To”

Reader Doug asked me about the difference, if any, between in accordance with and according to. Garner’s Modern American Usage says that according to means (1) “depending on”; (2) “as explained or reported by (a person)”; or (3) “in accordance with.” It’s used relatively often in contracts to convey the last of these meanings, as in “Any dispute must be … Read More

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and Syntactic Ambiguity—A Cautionary Tale

Reader Kazu brought to my attention the following language from the recently enacted Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (emphasis added): For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation … Read More

What Businesspeople Think of Contract Language

I’m at Tremblant, the Quebec ski resort, at the invitation of the Canadian Healthcare Licensing Association. I just finished giving a short version of my “Language and Layout” seminar to sixty business-development people from Canadian pharmaceuticals companies. The participants included some lawyers, but for the most part this was a group of businesspeople. And although about a third of those … Read More

Contracts as a Relationship-Building Tool

Some people regard the contract process as an adversarial one. I encountered a great example of that recently: someone I’ve been corresponding with used the word “opponent” in referring to a lawyer representing the other side in a deal. When the other side is the enemy, you’re free to indulge in “creative ambiguity” and other shenanigans. That’s a long way … Read More

Using “Any” to Tame “And”

Here’s a case of modest interest to you fans of and and or: County of Du Page v. Ill. Labor Rels. Bd., No. 105395, 2008 Ill. LEXIS 1835 (Ill. Dec. 18, 2008). It involves statutory construction, but the principles at issue apply equally to contracts. The Illinois Labor Relations Board certified a chapter of the Metropolitan Alliance of Police (the … Read More