82,572
edits
Special pleading: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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 {{tag|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 12: | Line 12: | ||
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/pfd/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]]. | 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/pfd/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]]. | ||
It is widely acknowledged that | 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. | ||
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 cases. 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]]. | 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. Merit, in the eyes of our learned friend, lies ''only in the particular''. She has no use for | 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. 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]]. | ||