Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9369314" data-attributes="member: 7038835">Yes and No. Part of a lawyer's job is to be persuasive, so adding a flourish etc here is sometimes part of the job - particularly in the US where the influence of the late Justice Scalia has led a lot of people to believe that sprinkling a little touch of drama or comedy on your rhetoric makes it more compelling (not what Scalia recommended, but y'know, people are people).  However, they are expected to be persuasive to the court, and courts have very specific expectations (most of which they are required to have by law).The degree to which flourish and informality can be used also varies greatly by venue and document - some documents are extremely rigid in their formula and some are very open ended.  I've left out the majority of docs from the docket, because they're basically forms the court needs filled out correctly.  (Courts vary in their tolerance for this, and usually people who self-represent are given more leeway and assistance than actual lawyers)Letters to the court are very open, and flourishes like that can be considered helpful if they are illustrative, make the key points memorable, etc. For that reason these kinds of things also sometimes appear in judgments (varying in degree from venue to venue, judge to judge) - after all what Scalia did recommend was to to heavy emphasis on your key point and make it impossible to overlook or forget.It also sometimes gets used to varying degrees to try to influence the public opinion and please the client - one of the actually most interesting, memorable and funniest things about <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68228150/gina-carano-v-the-walt-disney-company/" target="_blank">Carano v. Disney</a> was that Carano's initial complaint had an introduction that was a homage to the traditional Star Wars opening crawl - unfortunately for Gina everything aside from that is bad (including the wording within the opening crawl) so it seems inevitable she will be crushed under the behemoth that is Disney's legal team (it's currently facing a motion to dismiss on the basis that the 1st Amendment is a complete defense which is just a chef kiss level response given that the case is being funded by "Free Speech Absolutist" Elon Musk).For the most part Law is a combination of extremely rigid documents where you have to follow the instructions to the letter, and more open documents where the burden in upon you to express certain points in the most persuasive manner possible.  One of the reasons the judge in the original case was eager to get rid of the case was Justin's lawyer had repeatedly failed to express a valid cause of action - without which all his other rhetoric was worthless.  He doesn't seem to be taking that well, or willing to own up to his own part in that decision.</blockquote>

Verification