Via Delia Venables, Jonathan Mitchell Q.C. has what is apparently the first website of a Scottish advocate (the equivalent of an English barrister, as the ‘Q.C.’ indicates). He practises with the Murray Stable – does this mean that the Scots use Stable where the English use Chambers? Jonathan Mitchell’s site is not complete (he describes it as ‘home-made’). Under miscellany, there are links to Scots law sites (the site uses frames so I can’t give a specific URL).
He has a nice section ‘Looking for a different Jonathan Mitchell?’ Very amusing, the Jonathan Mitchells he has found on the Web. Why didn’t I think of that? There used to be a Margaret Marks in her seventies running a bar in Nevada somewhere.

Two sites mentioned are Absolvitor by Iain Nisbet and Scottish Law Online by Kevin Crombie.

Someone wanted to know what the name of the heading of a contract is, the bit where the parties are named. In U.S. English it is the caption. I would have thought in BE it is the heading. (Later: no, it can’t be, because the headings are the headings over the various sections. I have concluded, and others on the legaltranslators list at Yahoo Groups agree, it is the ‘parties’ section in England and Wales).

Searching for evidence, I found materials by Professor Gary Neustadter of Santa Clara University School of Law, including Anatomy of a written agreement, which defines the parts (U.S.). It refers elsewhere for conditions and promises (the main part), but it deals with title, caption, recitals, definitions, and closing.

It also has some writing suggestions, e.g.:

bq. Idle Words, California Lawyer, April 2002
“Defendants” will suffice in lieu of “defendants, and each of them.” “If” will suffice in lieu of “in the event that.” “Tell,” “describe,” or “explain” is more informative than “set forth.” “Before” and “after” are more concise and less pretentious than “prior to” and “subsequent to.” In a written agreement “the parties agree” suffices in lieu of “the parties expressly agree” and there is no need to say “the parties mutually agree.” “On” suffices in lieu of “upon.” “Under the contract” suffices in lieu of “under the terms of the contract” or “under the provisions of the contract.” “Various” is ususually useless (as in “under various provisions of the contract”). “They amended the contract to correct the ambiguity” suffices in lieu of “they amended the contract in order to correct the ambiguity.” Finally, in argument, use the word “clear” or “clearly” sparingly. If something is clear, the intelligent reader knows it and if something is not clear the intelligent reader will be insulted or skeptical if you claim the contrary.

Again quoting California Lawyer, it calls those useful preposition groups like with regard to, in connection with and with respect to “tedious preposition sandwiches”.

I’m not sure how to link to the material from a higher level. I would have preferred to give a shallower link, but never mind.

Anyway, I just read on advobLAWg and Handakte WebLAWg that the Bundesgerichtshof says deep linking is allowed.

The German American Law Journal Blog has been announced a few times, but it was only via Lenz Blog (English version) that I got the right address. The German Law Journal itself I have mentioned before. Of course, The German Law Journal is not the German *American* Law Journal. So I probably got confused myself.

The GALJ has The Daily Technical Term. At the moment they have
technical term = Fachbegriff
I offer in addition term of art = Fachausdruck
(Begriff means term, but if you want to distinguish the expression from the conception, Ausdruck is useful)

They also have guilt = Schuld
This is correct, but when translating in the other direction Tatbestandsmäßigkeit, Rechtswidrigkeit and Schuld, it becomes more difficult.

There is a German version too. The technical term is below the message Willkommen in Washington.

The GALJ describes itself as unaffiliated and non-commercial, and it runs on bloxsom (which I’ve heard of but never consciously seen before):

bq. A forum for information sharing in the areas of German and American law, mainly where the two intersect, vary or intrigue.

bq. Contributors are:
Clemens Kochinke, Esq. of Berliner, Corcoran & Rowe, LLP, Washington, DC;
Interns and young lawyers who prepare the material during their internships in Washington; and
Their knowledgeable friends and colleagues.

There is a link to the amLaw site, which has links to materials in German on American law, and in English on German law, nearly all of it written by Germans. (The GALJ is independent of these other sites).

Further to my last report, the mute Trinidadian has now been acquitted of the murder of his brother. The jury deliberated for only ten minutes.

bq. “Yes, I does still miss him,” Guness Mansingh said of his dead son, 24-year-old Mukesh.
“I am not pleased that one of my sons kill the next one, but I can’t change that and I have to live with it,” he told the Express.
However, he pointed out that since Mukesh died, “it have peace in the house and nobody living in fear anymore”.

The winners of the 2003 Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest have been announced. IN my case, via The Shifted Librarian, but obviously via via via… The contest is run by San Jose State University

Bulwer-Lytton wrote the words ‘It was a dark and stormy night’, now usually associated with Snoopy in Peanuts.

Here’s one of the winners:

bq. Winner: Detective
Detective Inspector Mike Norman slipped six fingers into his overcoat pocket, five of them clad in a latex glove and attached to his palm, while the sixth was wrapped in a plastic evidence bag and apparently belonged to the kidnapped pianist Ricardo Moore, or, as it now seemed likely, the kidnapped ex-pianist Ricardo Moore.
Alan Campbell
Edinburgh, Scotland

2002 results, 2001 results.

It was suggested I might say what differences were mentioned at last Saturday’s seminar between legal English in England and Wales and in the USA. So this is just a short list, because there weren’t so many things.

Problems: translators into English living in Germany often translate into English that is going to be read in more than one jurisdiction / country
So if I know the verb undertake will confuse people in the USA, I will use agree , which is OK for both BE and AmE

|U.S.A.|England and Wales|

|Names of parties: (The) Buyer / (The) Seller|The Buyer / The Seller|

|Dates: 7.12.2003|12.7.2003|

Translators should write the month out as a word, e.g. 12 July 2003.

|stipulate|undertake|

(the meaning may be different, but each is used in one country only
Some difference in the meaning of the word covenant?
I think the Americans refer to an entire agreement clause and to warranties and representations – I think we have the phenomenon but use slightly different vocabulary to refer to it.
U.S.: forum and venue, forum shopping
class action
best efforts, at arm’s length

|use of serial comma|OUP uses it and it is permitted in BE, but not many people know that!|

And when you write out a figure in words, apparently the Americans don’t write in words, but just:

|325,000 only (three hundred…)|325,000 (in words: three hundred…)|

It would never have occurred to me that the Americans don’t write ‘in words’!

It was mentioned that the word appearer exists in Australia to refer to the persons appearing before a notary (die Erschienenen). I found it on the Web only in Louisiana, though, which makes sense because they have a partly civil-law system and would have notarial contracts. See, for example, this New Orleans site giving Types of Notarial Acts – the word appearer comes up frequently.