For anyone who actually reads this blog, sorry I've not been posting much. I've had a lot of work to do.
I've been working on what's called a memorandum in opposition (MIO) to a motion for summary judgment (MSJ). For all you non lawyers, an MSJ is an attempt to win (or partially win) a case without going to trial. The idea is to convince a judge that the law, or the undisputed facts, entitle you to win with such clarity that the Court will decide that the other side is not entitled to a trial.
We do mostly Plaintiff's work, which means we bring suits against wrongdoers. One thing that frustrates me is that, in the complaints my boss files, he likes to assert every plausible claim (theory of recovery) he can think of and force the other side to get rid of them. When the other side moves to get rid of these claims, as in a MSJ, I have to write a legal memorandum defending the claims as best I can, based on the law and facts.
Trouble is, for some claims, there's no good argument and your client should lose. The law or the facts (or both) are simply against you. Yet, I have to come up with "something" for the memorandum. I am usally able to come up with "something" (not something that will win, mind you, but something that will at least fill the page with a semblance of legal argument). But for me, this process is excruciating.
And I know why. I trained in Philosophy for many years, and the practice of Philosophy ingrains in its devotees a deep adversion to bullshit! But now I'm paid to produce it on demand and I struggle.
Ironic?
Joe H.
Posts
It Is Accomplished
8 years ago
1 comment:
Not ironic at all, Joe! You heard me pondering this possibility with you in late night philosophical discussions as early as your first year of law school!
I don't see it as too much of a problem as long as you don't let the oil drive the water away. Your gift has been to help people think; as long as you keep practicing that, and leave your job at the office, the universes needn't collide and destroy each other : )
Post a Comment