Month: September 2010

Getting Litigator Input When Drafting Contracts

In the article on arbitration versus litigation that I mentioned in this post, a couple of the litigators interviewed noted wistfully that they’re almost never consulted about what dispute-resolution provisions to include in a given contract. That raises a general question: Do you ever consult litigators when drafting? Do you think it adds value to do so? It would seem … Read More

Tweaking Your Arbitration Clause

If you’re a fan of the litigation-versus-arbitration debate, you’ll find of interest this article on law.com. It’s from the Legal Intelligencer, and it’s by Gina Passarella. The title says it all: “Litigators Losing Love of Arbitration Argue for Trials.” But what caught my eye was the suggestions made by those interviewed for the article regarding how you can attempt to limit … Read More

Some Thoughts on Theory Versus Practice in Law Schools

In recent days there’s been plenty of chatter about this post on Balkinization by Jason Mazzone, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. Here’s the meat of what he proposes: As far as I can tell, no law school in the United States co-exists in a university along with an academic law department. If a university has a law school, every professor … Read More

“Mandatory”

The word mandatory can come in handy in contracts, for example in the defined term Mandatory Conversion, as distinguished from Voluntary Conversion. But it can also be surplussage, in that if something is stated as an obligation, then necessarily it’s mandatory. That’s why I think mandatory can be omitted from the following examples: The parties agree that all claims, disputes … Read More