Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Narrative Understanding: Revisiting The Stories Of Lay Lawyering, Ann Shalleck
Narrative Understanding: Revisiting The Stories Of Lay Lawyering, Ann Shalleck
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
This article examines the tentative beginnings of Gerald Lopez's decades-long project of using storytelling as a method to describe, understand, and analyze the work of lawyers. It evaluates his 1984 article, Lay Lawyering, for its contributions to the development of narrative as a descriptive, explanatory, and critical device for comprehending the complex and fraught work of lawyers. It begins with a detailed critique of the four parts of Lay Lawyering. In the article, Lopez first identifies problem solving and stock stories as the key concepts defining the work of the lawyer and then tells three stories from three perspectives about …
Best Practices For Teaching Advanced Legal Research Asynchronously Online, Khelani Clay, Shannon M. Roddy
Best Practices For Teaching Advanced Legal Research Asynchronously Online, Khelani Clay, Shannon M. Roddy
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
No abstract provided.
Practice And Fitness Making Writing Perfection More Nearly Attainable, Heather Ridenour, David Spratt
Practice And Fitness Making Writing Perfection More Nearly Attainable, Heather Ridenour, David Spratt
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
No abstract provided.
"And/Or" And The Proper Use Of Legal Language, Ira P. Robbins
"And/Or" And The Proper Use Of Legal Language, Ira P. Robbins
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
The use of the term and/or is pervasive in legal language. Lawyers use it in all types of legal contexts—including statutes, contracts, and pleadings. Beginning in the 1930s, however, many judges decided that the term and/or should never be used in legal drafting. Ardent attacks on the term included charges that it was vague, if not meaningless, with some authorities declaring it to be a “Janus-faced verbal monstrosity,” an “inexcusable barbarism,” a “mongrel expression,” an “abominable invention,” a “crutch of sloppy thinkers,” and “senseless jargon.” Still today, critics maintain that the construct and/or is inherently ambiguous and should be avoided …