Corante

CONTRIBUTORS

Denise Howell Denise Howell
( Profile | Archive )

Dennis M. Kennedy Dennis M. Kennedy
( Profile | Archive )

Tom Mighell Tom Mighell
( Profile | Archive )

Marty Schwimmer Marty Schwimmer
( Profile | Archive )

Ernest Svenson Ernest Svenson
( Profile | Archive )

Denise Howell is a seasoned appellate and intellectual property litigator based in Los Angeles. Denise writes one of the first and most popular law-related blogs, Bag and Baggage, coined the term "blawg" and helped pioneer podcasting for lawyers. Microcontent obsessed since 2001, she is frequently quoted in the media on legal issues involving intellectual property and technology law. "Sound Policy" is Denise's show at IT Conversations, and it's also what she hopes results from the briefs she submits to court. Email Denise at dhowell@gmail.com.

Dennis Kennedy is a computer lawyer and legal technology expert based in St. Louis, Missouri. An award-winning author, a frequent speaker and a widely-read blogger, he has more than 300 publications on legal, technology and Internet topics, many of which are collected in his e-books. Dennis has been described as someone who knows almost every rock song in existence and, more importantly, how they apply to technology and law. Email Dennis at his gmail address.

Tom Mighell is Senior Counsel and Litigation Technology Support Coordinator at Cowles & Thompson in Dallas. He has published the Internet Legal Research Weekly newsletter since 2000 and blogged about the Internet and legal technology at Inter Alia since August of 2002. With Tom's singing, Ernie on guitar and Dennis' encylopedic knowledge of rock music, we may have the beginnings of a good band, if this whole blog thing doesn't work out. Email Tom at tmighell@swbell.net.

Marty Schwimmer left a partnership in the largest trademark practice in the world and founded Schwimmer Mitchell, a full-service IP micro-boutique in Westchester County, New York, where he represents owners of famous and not yet famous trademarks. He founded The Trademark Blog, the first IP law blog and the one with the most pictures. He is the first to come in and the last to leave in his firm. Email Marty at marty@schwimmerlegal.com.

Ernest Svenson practices law with a mid-sized law firm in New Orleans, specializing in business-related lawsuits. Most of his practice takes place in federal court, especially the Eastern District. He is best known for his weblog Ernie the Attorney, which he started as an experiment. Like many experiments it got out of control. Nevertheless, he continues to practice law and, occasionally, to seek enlightenment. Email Ernest at esvenson@gmail.com.
About this blog
Between Lawyers provides just-in-time group commentary on the issues raised when technology, culture and the law intersect. We take you behind the firewalls and conference room doors to show you how experienced lawyers deal with these issues and help you prepare for the new challenges we all face. For more, see our introductory post.
Just Released the 2008 Tribalization of Business study - an in-depth look at how 140+ organizations are managing and measuring online communities

Between Lawyers

« What's Next in Technology? | Main | Lenz, Creative Commons and Emoticon Patents »

July 28, 2005

Boilerplate language - why is it necessary?

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Svenson

Over at my blog I've been on rant about boilerplate language, specifically the verbose stuff that many lawyers (particularly those who work in large firms) are adding to their emails.  Whenever I bring this up I always get emails from lawyers who point out why the addition of this linguistic linguini is beneficial.  I understand what they are saying (I am an attorney after all and have trained my mind to send and receive 'lawyer speak'), but I have serious concerns about having an email program automatically add verbiage to all outbound emails. 

In fact, I have a lot of questions about this method of attaching qualifiers to our emails:

  • Aren't lawyers supposed to be versed in the art of critical, focused thinking?
  • Is there no way to be more selective about the boilerplate that we add to emails? 
  • The automatic inclusion of dense language will (over time) actually diminish the likelihood that people will read this stuff. Should that fact play a role in deciding if we should indiscriminately add boilerplate?
  • And if no one is reading or understanding the boilerplate then why are we being required to add it?

It all seems like a very complex version of 'Mother may I'.  If we indiscriminately add the dense language then we are automatically immune from any possible liability.  We are immune because we will have discharged our lawyerly obligation to notify our client of something that is supposedly quite important, and which requires special attention.  Yet, we discharge this obligation in a way that is guaranteed to make people's eyes glaze over and has almost no chance of providing people with meaningful information.

Does this really make sense? Maybe it does to some people.

I guess it does if you believe that maybe our evolutionary break from the primates isn't all that large. Then it makes a lot of sense.

Comments (1) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Practice of Law


COMMENTS

1. Aaron on August 7, 2005 3:47 PM writes...

If you consider the people the court is attempting to protect: those ignorant to a sufficient degree of the law that if you don't tell them to look both ways when they cross the legal "street" they won't look at all. The warning language is not meant to be intelligent at all if you view it from that angle, more like a blow to the head to make them aware there is any danger at all.

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
New NY Advertising Rules Are Out There
(Head)Hunting Season
Best Wishes for 2007!
Legal Services and the LongTail
New Bar Blogging Policy Emphasizes Cluefulness, Participation
Disturbing Study on Treatment of Minority Female Lawyers
Are Blawgs Dead?
The Gospel of Blawging