Special pleading: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|psychology|[[File:All different.jpg|450px|thumb|center|You’re all different. You’re all individuals.]]}}{{d|Special pleading|/ˈspɛʃəl | {{a|psychology|[[File:All different.jpg|450px|thumb|center|You’re all different. You’re all individuals.]]}}{{Dsh special pleading quote}} | ||
::—{{buchstein}}, {{dsh}} | |||
{{d|Special pleading|/ˈspɛʃəl ˈpliːdɪŋ/|n|}}<br>1. To cite something — usually, one’s job, person or justification for sorry existence — as an exception to a general principle with which one otherwise professes impassioned agreement, without explaining or justifying the exception.<br> | |||
2. A [[double standard]], being a standard that is so good it is worth ''two'' normal standards. | 2. A [[double standard]], being a standard that is so good it is worth ''two'' normal standards. | ||
{{quote|“No, I | {{quote|“No, I wholeheartedly agree we must shorten our documents, cut out the complexity and the clutter, standardise them, and render them in [[plain English]]. There is no more sacred calling. It is as urgent as it is vital. Modernisation is key.”<br> | ||
“Great, so how about this [[confidentiality agreement]] you sent me, that goes on for eight pages?” <br> | “Great, so how about this [[confidentiality agreement]] you sent me, that goes on for eight pages?” <br> | ||
“Ah. Yes, well, you see, that is a special case and [''the client relationship is really important and they wouldn’t accept any change''] [[and/or]] [''we have been doing it this way for years''] [[and/or]] [''we cannot afford to weaken our stance''] [[and/or]] [''insert excuse here''... ]”}} | “Ah. Yes, well, you see, that is a special case and [''the client relationship is really important and they wouldn’t accept any change''] [[and/or]] [''we have been doing it this way for years''] [[and/or]] [''we cannot afford to weaken our stance''] [[and/or]] [''insert excuse here''... ]”}} | ||
| Line 8: | Line 11: | ||
{{agency paradox capsule}} | {{agency paradox capsule}} | ||
Examples abound. The JC, because he is [[sloth|lazy]], is an compulsive ''simplifier''. There is not a [[contract]] in the world, he is fond of saying, that could not be half the length it is. | Examples abound. The [[JC]], because he is [[sloth|lazy]], is an compulsive ''simplifier''. There is not a [[contract]] in the world, he is fond of saying, that could not be half the length it is. | ||
This is hardly a controversy: you will find any practising lawyer to whom you make this observation in violent, general, agreement. So too, the Law Society, any regulatory body you care to mention, and many of the world’s legislators. The [[SEC]] has written an [https://www.sec.gov/ | This is hardly a controversy: you will find any practising lawyer to whom you make this observation in violent, general, agreement. So too, the Law Society, any regulatory body you care to mention, and many of the world’s legislators. The [[SEC]] has written an [https://www.sec.gov/pdf/handbook.pdf impassioned tract] imploring prospectus writers to be brief. The European Commission won’t let you even market securities unless you are [[K.I.I.D.|curt to the point of bluntness]]. | ||
The [[SEC]]’s entreaty has gone entirely unheeded but it is yet to launch enforcement action, so far as we are aware, on grounds of prolixity, overuse of [[capitals]], or haughtiness towards [[New Hampshire|residents of New Hampshire]]. [[K.I.I.D.]]s are a thing — bravo, the European Commission — but they are still issued subject to a two-hundred-and-eighty-page prospectus in order to — no, no; I confess: I have not the first idea why issuers still generate a two-hundred-and-eighty-page prospectus that, as sure as night follows day, not a soul on this barren rock (bar the [[Private practice lawyer|godforsaken soul]] who drafted it) will ever read — if it is not simply to keep their lawyers in nice houses in the home counties. | |||
Now, it is widely acknowledged that legal repartee is overwrought; much of it hot air. Yet we find a curious [[dissonance]]: for however passionately a [[legal eagle]] may agree with this proposition ''in the abstract'', it will be a different story ''in the particular'' — especially where the particular in question is ''her own document''. | |||
“Ah, yes,” she will say. “Generally, one should be short and to the point, but ''this'' — well, this is a [[special case]].” | “Ah, yes,” she will say. “Generally, one should be short and to the point, but ''this'' — well, this is a [[special case]].” | ||
The legal world, you see, is composed of special | The legal world, you see, is composed of [[special case]]s. ''Exclusively''. That uniform, unbroken wall of [[entropic]] homogeneity that we know as legal “[[verbiage]]” is, if you stand close enough to it, composed of brilliant, unique, delicate, glistering particles. Every one is different. Every one is special. It is only their aggregated whole that is resembles an ocean of oatish blanditry. This we call a ''[[paradox]]''. You know how the [[JC]] loves a [[paradox]]. | ||
Now, everything in the [[legal eagle]]’s armoury is arranged around the [[analogy]]. This is ''[[stare decisis]]'': the [[doctrine of precedent]]. The common | Now, everything in the [[legal eagle]]’s armoury is arranged around the [[analogy]]. This is ''[[stare decisis]]'': the [[doctrine of precedent]]. The [[common law]]yer proceeds exclusively by anecdote. She treats each case on its merit — and merit, in the eyes of our learned friend, lies ''only in the particular''. She has no use for “the general”. She cannot comprehend it. “The general” — the [[emergent]] value of all contracts across the market, seen and unseen — is an abstraction beyond her possible [[care horizon]]. “The general” simply isn’t meaningful. | ||
Obviously, we can agree ''in general'' that legal documents should be shorter, clearer and better, but ''[[legal eagles]] don’t deal in generalities''. They deal in particulars. Lots of beautiful, tiny, glimmering, bejeweled, [[special case]]s. Managing risk on a “portfolio” basis – which is surely what all [[financial services]] organisations must do – comes very hard to one trained in the [[common law]]. | Obviously, we can agree ''in general'' that legal documents should be shorter, clearer and better, but ''[[legal eagles]] don’t deal in generalities''. They deal in particulars. Lots of beautiful, tiny, glimmering, bejeweled, [[special case]]s. Managing risk on a “portfolio” basis – which is surely what all [[financial services]] organisations must do – comes very hard to one trained in the [[common law]]. | ||
{{Sa}} | |||
*[[Tedium is particular, scale is generic]] | |||
{{c|paradox}} | {{c|paradox}} | ||
{{c|plain English}} | {{c|plain English}} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024
|
The psychology of legal relations
|
Queen: This covenant is well-drafted, but yegads! ’Tis lengthy.
Triago: (bowing unctuously): The writer shall be deemed hereinbefore obliged.
Herculio: My liege and madam, to expostulate
What brevity should be, what clarity is —
Why “day” is business day, and “time” is closing time.
’Tis buried — lost — among the cluttered syntax of this deed.
Queen: ’Twas no compliment, good Herculio, rest assured.
A crafty phrase to propitiate that noisome clerk, no more.
Herculio: Madam, I do concur!
Since brevity is the soul of wit,
And boilerplate the crutch of wretched tedium
I will be brief, where Triago, in all his trite facility, cannot.
Triago: Milady! With all due and payable respect, and interest accrued thereon
I wouldst be inclined to be supportive of dissent —
Queen: O, exasperating vapours! Whatever doth he mean?
Herculio: Triago disagrees.
“Inclined”, Triago?
“Supportive”?
As straight as that?
No deemery to wrap it round?
Triago: Aye, deemèd, perchance — I pray just such indulgence
To vouchsafe avoidance of some doubt.
Queen: Doubt, Triago?
Triago: I’ll think of something, Majesty.
Herculio: How now, good lady: doth thou now understand?
Queen: I fear I do, in that I do not.
Speak, Triago — but pray, be quick.
Triago: Celerity shall herein be mutually agreed to be — and shall be deemed to be — the watchword Madam!
Herculio: There goeth that wretched deemery —
Triago: Was it not ever not unlike a thing unsuch as this?
Queen: Damn and blast your eyes, Triago!
Have at you now!
QUEEN runs TRIAGO through with a rapier and exits
Herculio: We fold our patron’s righteous sleep in word pollution
By the chaff and shucks and hulls of convolution
And whoever buys these minty lines: understand
Lexical complexity doth, pro rata with thy budget, soon expand.
CURTAIN
Special pleading
/ˈspɛʃəl ˈpliːdɪŋ/ (n.)
1. To cite something — usually, one’s job, person or justification for sorry existence — as an exception to a general principle with which one otherwise professes impassioned agreement, without explaining or justifying the exception.
2. A double standard, being a standard that is so good it is worth two normal standards.
“No, I wholeheartedly agree we must shorten our documents, cut out the complexity and the clutter, standardise them, and render them in plain English. There is no more sacred calling. It is as urgent as it is vital. Modernisation is key.”
“Great, so how about this confidentiality agreement you sent me, that goes on for eight pages?”
“Ah. Yes, well, you see, that is a special case and [the client relationship is really important and they wouldn’t accept any change] and/or [we have been doing it this way for years] and/or [we cannot afford to weaken our stance] and/or [insert excuse here... ]”
The agency paradox: every agent believes in an equivalent double standard: viz., the key to its principal’s business transformation is to disintermediate everything but itself. An instance of, “I agree with you generally, but my particular case is special”.
Examples abound. The JC, because he is lazy, is an compulsive simplifier. There is not a contract in the world, he is fond of saying, that could not be half the length it is.
This is hardly a controversy: you will find any practising lawyer to whom you make this observation in violent, general, agreement. So too, the Law Society, any regulatory body you care to mention, and many of the world’s legislators. The SEC has written an impassioned tract imploring prospectus writers to be brief. The European Commission won’t let you even market securities unless you are curt to the point of bluntness.
The SEC’s entreaty has gone entirely unheeded but it is yet to launch enforcement action, so far as we are aware, on grounds of prolixity, overuse of capitals, or haughtiness towards residents of New Hampshire. K.I.I.D.s are a thing — bravo, the European Commission — but they are still issued subject to a two-hundred-and-eighty-page prospectus in order to — no, no; I confess: I have not the first idea why issuers still generate a two-hundred-and-eighty-page prospectus that, as sure as night follows day, not a soul on this barren rock (bar the godforsaken soul who drafted it) will ever read — if it is not simply to keep their lawyers in nice houses in the home counties.
Now, it is widely acknowledged that legal repartee is overwrought; much of it hot air. Yet we find a curious dissonance: for however passionately a legal eagle may agree with this proposition in the abstract, it will be a different story in the particular — especially where the particular in question is her own document.
“Ah, yes,” she will say. “Generally, one should be short and to the point, but this — well, this is a special case.”
The legal world, you see, is composed of special cases. Exclusively. That uniform, unbroken wall of entropic homogeneity that we know as legal “verbiage” is, if you stand close enough to it, composed of brilliant, unique, delicate, glistering particles. Every one is different. Every one is special. It is only their aggregated whole that is resembles an ocean of oatish blanditry. This we call a paradox. You know how the JC loves a paradox.
Now, everything in the legal eagle’s armoury is arranged around the analogy. This is stare decisis: the doctrine of precedent. The common lawyer proceeds exclusively by anecdote. She treats each case on its merit — and merit, in the eyes of our learned friend, lies only in the particular. She has no use for “the general”. She cannot comprehend it. “The general” — the emergent value of all contracts across the market, seen and unseen — is an abstraction beyond her possible care horizon. “The general” simply isn’t meaningful.
Obviously, we can agree in general that legal documents should be shorter, clearer and better, but legal eagles don’t deal in generalities. They deal in particulars. Lots of beautiful, tiny, glimmering, bejeweled, special cases. Managing risk on a “portfolio” basis – which is surely what all financial services organisations must do – comes very hard to one trained in the common law.