"x x x.
The high court's reply was itself a model of brevity and plain language:
"A response having been filed, the Order to Show Cause, dated Dec. 8, 2014, is discharged. All Members of the Bar are reminded, however, that they are responsible — as Officers of the Court — for compliance with the requirement of Supreme Court Rule 14.3 that petitions for certiorari be stated 'in plain terms,' and may not delegate that responsibility to the client."
The Shipley episode roiled the community of Supreme Court advocates, most of whom expressed shock that any lawyer would in effect package a client's ramblings as a petition for certiorari and send it off to the court. "A lot of people were talking about the case," Blatt said. Shipley declined to comment.
The court's unsolicited advice to lawyers in general is also generating buzz, renewing the perennial conversation about why some lawyers write dense, turgid prose pocked with words like "hereinafter" and "whereupon."
"Almost all lawyers tell me plain language makes sense," said Hank Wallace, a lawyer and former journalist who teaches plain-language seminars to lawyers and others. "But some say their boss or client might find it weak or undignified. Or the boss and client might like plain language, but the opponent might find it weak or undignified."
But if a brief is "too vague or gratuitously difficult," Wallace continued, "the judge will hold that against the writer." Wallace's bottom line: "Plain language is embarrassment insurance."
x x x."
Read more: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202721896741/A-Tip-From-The-Justices-on-Writing-Keep-it-Simple#ixzz3W1VsAZJJ
