82,514
edits
Special pleading: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| 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]]. | ||
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. | 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 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. | 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. | ||