Law Documents in a Nutshell

Ramakrishnan M writes "LawMeme has a two part article (more to come) on reading and interpreting Legalese for geeks, titled "Law School in a nutshell". Here is the Part 1 and part 2"

Comments

IAAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike 99% of the crap you'll read here, I AM a lawyer, however, this article has a lot of good information in it, even if you don't plan on being a lawyer.

A couple of minor things......

[idiotnot]

On Citations...

XXX U.S. XXXX (19XX): That's the official citation of a case. Often, if you go into a library, you won't find an official reporter (and you probably wouldn't want the official reporter, anyway). Lexis and West Publishing put out what are called unofficial reporters, the Lawyer's Edition (L.Ed.) and....I can't remember the other one at the moment IIRC (Supreme Court Reports). These have all sorts of annotations that lead you to other important info regarding the case, or cases cited within the decision. Sometimes in the decision itself, if you're not familiar with a case that's cited by the writer, you won't understand the argument. Some judges are especially obtuse (think writing code without good comments).

The Brief:

Here's the thing....the brief is far from the full story when considering a case. The brief puts one side's best spin on the case. It's designed to be persuasive, as well as being informative. Both sides submit them, blah blah blah. But, especially in cases before the Supreme Court, other factors come into play. A well-written amicus brief can have quite a bit of influence; even if the two parties involved do not solicit it, nor endorse it.

After the all the briefs are submitted, the justices hear oral arguments, where they're free to clarify things that don't make sense.

In a sense, the briefs discussed in this article are Release Notes on the case....they make the argument, but don't tell the full story.

I Am *Still* Not A Lawyer

[HillClimber]

I appreciate the attempt to inform, but it seems to me this falls into the category of "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous". The pages bill themselves as "3 years of law school in a nutshell", as if you'd get a quick overview of relevant law for geeks. However, it is an analysis of one particular court filing, and based on my 15+ years dealing with legal docs and lawyers (as a techie, IASNAL), I didn't find a scrap of it relevant to software licensing, employment contracts, stock option agreements, or confidentiality agreements. You may find it entertaining, but it's not going to help you deal with the legal issues that you come across in the real world.

Re:I Am *Still* Not A Lawyer

[Eppie]

IAAL, and while this tutorial won't help you read a contract or understand license issues, it serves a useful though narrow purpose. This tutorial will actually help you begin to parse briefs, which is useful for understanding legal battles featured in the news.

It's more than just entertainment. There is social utility in lay people understanding the legal arguments presented in a case.

Get a real legal education

[AntiFreeze]

With the amount of "IANAL" legal advice given on slashdot and through other mediums, I'm actually sort of scared about what this "bringing the law to the layman" type of article will actually accomplish. Now, although this article looks like it's geared more towards helping one disect a court's opinion than help lawyer want-to-bes, I'm still afraid of the ramifications of those who take this "law documents in a nutshell" as a substitute for actually learning the law.

The more people who think they know the law but are unaware of its subtleties and precedants make for a less intelligent exchange of ideas and more "I know what I'm talking about, listen to me, not them" type of exchanges.

I know this for two reasons: I come from a family of lawyers and legal experts, and I tend to fall into the "I'm correct, damnit!" category I just mentioned. Therefore, I'm usually shot down by the legal minds in my family, even when I'm being particularly intelligent in my own right, or *cough* quoting a piece of "+5 Insightful" legal advice gleaned from slashdot.

There is no substitute for a real legal education and pursuing real-world applications (be you a judge, law professor, trial lawyer or law clerk). I guess what I'm really attempting to say is that thinking you know something is no replacement for actually knowing that thing. Not that having a law degree makes you eligable to offer legal advice (I wouldn't ask an IP lawyer for help with closing on a house), but it does place you in better standing.

Use this article to help you better understand the legal document you are reading, do NOT use it to further legal advice to others -- that is not what this article, or any other like it, is meant for.
</rant>

Re:Get a real legal education

[Get Behind the Mule]

I see some sense in what you're saying, but I'm troubled by the implication that those of us without an extensive education must necessarily have little to say about matters of law. If we were talking about some obscure science that is hardly relevant to our daily lives, the idea would be less troubling. But this is stuff that impacts everybody in essential ways, and in a democracy, we have an obligation to form opinions about law, and especially about whether laws should be changed, and whether courts rule properly in their cases.

I also have a family connection to law, since my father is a lawyer. And when I've spoken to him about his cases, ever since I was a little kid, he has always taken the time to explain as much as he could about the facts, the law, the Constitution, and of course all of the coutroom politicking and dynamics that go on. It required a lot of long conversations, but he always encouraged me to develop my own understanding and opinions about what the law is, what it should be, and what the courts did and did not do correctly. I think it can only be in the lawyers' interests if all citizens try to do this as well as they can.

In other self-educated news...

[A nonymous Coward]

Haynes books have been banned because too many people were deluded into thinking they understoods mechanics' lingo, Home Depot has been shut down to avoid furthering the delusions of millions of do-it-yourselfers, The Motley Fool has been served with cease and desist papers, O'Reilly, Wrox, and many many other publishers have been hit with restraining orders, can millions of cat and dog owners have been served with restraining orders prohibiting them from coming closer than 100 yards to pet stores.

Don't we need a translator *the other way*?

[edashofy]

Don't we need a translator that goes the other way? As far as I know, Geeks are smart people, and take a more common-sense approach to the world than the law does.

What we really need is a tutorial on GeekSpeak for lawyers. That would teach them things like:

• Why the legal system is not prepared to sue thousands of people for minor cases of copyright infringement.
• No, you can't turn off Gnutella.
• No, you can't turn off the Internet just because Gnutella is on there.
• The record industry does not deserve phat l3wt5 simply because it has strongarmed us into giving it to them them in the past.

Code!=Law

[istartedi]

I enjoyed the article, but I dislike the fact that this tends to enforce the idea that code==law.

Code isn't law. Protocols are like law. Code that follows (or breaks) the protocols is not law, but more like agents under the law. Saying that code==law is like saying that drivers are the motor vehicle code.

Now, certainly it should be illegal to misrepresent code as being compliant to a protocol when it isn't (e.g., MSFT Kerberos). However, the code itself shouldn't be illegal--only the misrepresentation.

The distinction is important, because certain Free Software zealots are trying to use the code==law argument to convince people that software should be Public (they like to say Free when what they really mean is Public, like the Public School System), and perhaps even that private software should be outlawed.