Category Archives: paralegal

Replay Thursday

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on Replay Thursday

Thursday ReplayIt’s time for a review of recent blog posts just in case you’ve missed them. We call this Replay Thursday. Here are posts from Proof That proofreading blog and 60 Is The New 60 blog during the past week.

Grammar Giggle – Weeknd

Grammar Giggle – Friend Chicken

Confusing Words Of The Week

 

Email, RSS Follow

Confusing Words Of The Week

By | | , , , , , ,
Comments Off on Confusing Words Of The Week

Words of the WeekIt’s time for “Confusing Words of the Week” where I take a set of two or three words that get confused and give you definitions and try to give you a memory trick to help you remember when to use which word. If you have words that confuse you, use the Ask PTB tab on the website or send an email to [email protected] and they may appear here soon!

This week’s words are:

  • collision – a clashing
    • The receptionist had a car collision on her way to work today.
  • collusion – a scheme to defraud
    • He was accused of collusion in billing his elderly client through another corporation.

Memory tips:

  • collision – remember the “i” as in “incident”
  • collusion – remember the “u” as in “fraud”
Email, RSS Follow

Grammar Giggle – Friend Chicken

By | | , , , , , ,
Comments Off on Grammar Giggle – Friend Chicken

My cousin sent this one to me. I love friends and I love fried chicken (it is my death row meal), but “friend chicken” scares me a little bit. Again, the word is not misspelled, it is just not the right word. You need to read for context to make sure it is the right word.

Chicken

 

Email, RSS Follow

Replay Thursday

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on Replay Thursday

Thursday ReplayIt’s time for a review of recent blog posts just in case you’ve missed them. We call this Replay Thursday. Here are posts from Proof That proofreading blog and 60 Is The New 60 blog during the past week.

Grammar Giggle – You iPhone

Grammar Giggle – Nerver Too Old

Confusing Words of the Week

Attorneys and Apostrophes

 

Email, RSS Follow

Attorneys and Apostrophes

By | | , , , , , , ,
Comments Off on Attorneys and Apostrophes

Attorneys and ApostrophesI found this article and thought it was interesting. Incorrect use of apostrophes is probably my biggest pet peeve. It isn’t really hard. If you need to show possession or show that letters are missing, use an apostrophe. Otherwise, for the most part, do not use an apostrophe. There are, of course, exceptions, but you need to learn the difference because I’m pretty sure that you don’t want your attorney’s work to be the topic of a FindLaw article.

Attorney Objects to Motion’s Use of Apostrophes, Possessives

By Stephanie Rabiner, Esq. on June 16, 2011 5:42 AM

Though she managed to graduate from law school, Anissa Bluebaum apparently never managed to master elementary school grammar.

Or at least that’s what her fellow attorney had to say when he responded to a complaint in a civil lawsuit filed by Bluebaum.

Her egregious use of apostrophes made it impossible to tell who she was referring to and when.

Anissa Bluebaum is representing Alison Peck (a teacher who was busted for sleeping with her students) in a lawsuit against her former probation officer, Rebecca Martin, reports the Springfield News-Leader.

When Martin’s attorney, Richard Crites, received the complaint, he was a bit baffled. But Crites soldiered on, responding on behalf of his client.

With 8 pages of questions.

Apparently, the lawsuit was filed against Martin and her brother, but because Bluebaum had rendered the complaint incoherent by misusing both “defendants” and “defendant’s,” Crites was unable to tell whether statements were referring to one or both parties.

He also requested that Bluebaum respond to his request in paragraph form.

Did Bluebaum write her pleading like a stream-of-consciousness text message, too?

As you may know, glaring grammatical errors can be disastrous to your case (and make you look a bit ridiculous). So the next time you’re confronted with multiple parties to which you need to attribute actions or statements, keep the following in mind:

  • Defendants is more than one defendant;
  • Defendant’s is the possessive of a singular defendant; and
  • Defendants’ is the possessive of more than one defendant.

If you’re still unsure, ask around–you don’t want to end up like Anissa Bluebaum.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2011/06/attorney-objects-to-motions-use-of-apostrophes-possessives.html

 

Email, RSS Follow

Confusing Words of the Week

By | | , , , , , ,
Comments Off on Confusing Words of the Week

Words of the WeekIt’s time for “Confusing Words of the Week” where I take a set of two or three words that get confused and give you definitions and try to give you a memory trick to help you remember when to use which word. If you have words that confuse you, use the Ask PTB tab on the website or send an email to [email protected] and they may appear here soon!

This week’s words are:

  • anxious – desirous, but also implies fear or concern
    • He was anxious to get the results of the lab work.
  • eager – desirous
    • She was eager to go on the girls’ weekend.

Memory tips:

  • Since the words have pretty much the same definition, but anxious implies fear or concern, I would associate the “x” in anxious with a sign to avoid something because of fear or concern.
Email, RSS Follow

Replay Thursday

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on Replay Thursday

Thursday ReplayIt’s time for a review of recent blog posts just in case you’ve missed them. We call this Replay Thursday. Here are posts from Proof That proofreading blog and 60 Is The New 60 blog during the past week.

Grammar Giggle – Stumbling Over News Story

Grammar Giggle – Doctumentary

Confusing Words Of The Week

And

 

Email, RSS Follow