Legal mark-up: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 10:46, 14 October 2022

Redirect to:

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|negotiation|}}A [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyer’s]] stock-in-trade, her currency, the oxygen that gives her daily routine meaning and her role physical substance. For what is she if not her comments?
+#redirect[[mark-up]]
-''[[Ego sum id quod dico]]''  - ''[[Si quaeris causidicum loqui, locutus est tibi]]''
-If you ask a lawyer for [[comments]], she will give you some, whether your draft needed them or not. This is a founding crux of the [[anal paradox]]. For a mark-up proves you have read an agreement, considered its content, and justified your fee. It's in her nature. It is what she does.
-No text is immune from adjustment, and if your only objective is to show you've read it, slipping in a harmless [[for the avoidance of doubt]], or a [[without limitation]] or two, is the least professionally invasive way of achieving that.
-No such ornamentation is [[calculated]] to improve the elegance of the text, of course. To do that you will need to disentangle some convoluted grammar. This will be seen as enemy action, especially if your edits are not directed at ''some'' legal content, however spurious.
-{{plainenglish}}
-{{dramatis personae}}