Skip to content

good news/bad news, journal blogging edition

good news: a post from my journal’s blog team made it all the way to slashdot.

bad news: slashdot (more specifically, the blog we’re nominally affiliated with) called our writing ’surprisingly readable.’ It’s sad that lawyers are supposed to be excellent communicators, and yet our training typically stilts our writing so much that it is surprising when our work can be read by the public.

Comments closed — Trackback URI RSS 2.0 feed for these comments This entry (permalink) was posted on Sunday, March 23, 2008, at 11:07 am by Luis. Filed in forfacebook, law, media, school.

3 Comments

  1. Simon

    Problem is, lawyers by nature don’t speak English, any more than coders do. They speak a highly specialised dialect of technical jargon which is just an incomprehensible to most people as is talk of operating-system kernels. It’s simply a matter of how good any individual is at breaking out of their natural way of thinking in order to explain things to ‘normal’ people (by which I mean anyone other than a lawyer/coder/accountant/etc).

    Posted on 24-Mar-08 at 4:05 am | Permalink
  2. Luis

    To a certain extent that is true, but lawyers are presumed to be able to break out of that rut in ways that other specialists are not presumed to be.

    Posted on 24-Mar-08 at 6:18 am | Permalink
  3. Mark Gordon

    Trial lawyers, yes. Contract lawyers, not so much.

    Posted on 24-Mar-08 at 10:34 am | Permalink

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. Blog Jocky on 23-Mar-08 at 5:21 pm

    links from TechnoratiShawn Smithwrote an interesting post today on Here’s a quick excerpt bad news: slashdot (more specifically, the blog we’re nominally affiliated with) called our writing ’surprisingly readable.’ It’s sad that lawyers are supposed to be excellent