Attention to Work Product: Errors and Edits - Part I - January 2008 - the Scrivener: Modern Legal Writing
| Publication year | 2008 |
| Pages | 49 |
2008, January, Pg. 49. Attention to Work Product: Errors and Edits - Part I - January 2008 - The Scrivener: Modern Legal Writing
January 2008
Vol. 37, No. 1 [Page 49]
The Scrivener: Modern Legal Writing
Attention to Work Product: Errors and Edits - Part I
by Tanya B. Bartholomew
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGAL WRITING?
K.K. DuVivier will be happy to address them through the Scrivener column. Send your questions to: kkduvivier@law.du.edu or call her at (303) 871-6281.
Associate Professor K.K. DuVivier is on sabbatical during 2007-08. She has been writing this column continually since 1991 and will resume doing so in fall 2008. In her absence, Robert S. Anderson and Tanya B. Bartholomew will be writing the Scrivener articles.
About the Author:
Tanya B. Bartholomew has taught legal writing for the past fifteen years. She currently teaches at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law - tbartholomew@law.du.edu.
Across the country, federal and state courts are beginning to hold lawyers accountable for being inadequately prepared for their cases and for submitting written documents that indicate incompetence or lack of diligence. Judges are charging lawyers with ethical violations, imposing fee reductions, and employing open criticism.
This article is the first in a two-part series. This first part highlights several egregious instances of poor attorney work product and discusses how courts have responded to that work product. The second part, which will appear in the March 2008 Scrivener column, will provide a systematic method for editing documents to eliminate substantive and technical errors.
Careless Work Product
In 2004, Devore v. City of Philadelphia(fn1) attracted unprecedented media attention on the issue of the quality of a lawyer's written product. Plaintiff's attorney Brian Purcelli won a $345,000 verdict in a Title VII, § 1983 case. Purcelli requested $233,000 in attorney fees. The defense objected for several reasons, including Purcelli's poor work product. The court reduced his fees by 50 percent, stating:
Mr. Purcelli's written work is careless to the point of disrespectful. The Defendants have described it as "vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, verbose, and repetitive.'' We agree.(fn2)
The federal judge's decision was widely publicized and prompted considerable discussion in both national media and the legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial