Law School

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The thing is, most judges don't like them either. Cite a few cases and let it go.

I was updating the appendix for an upcoming petition, so I was reformatting text from Westlaw into the appropriate format - so annoying. The cite started with Meyer v. Nebraska and went through PP v. Casey - I've never hated italics so much in my life.

[unspokenone25]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

I've never hated italics so much in my life.

It's better than having to underline cites. A partner at my firm won't allow associates to use italics in cites...EVER.

[adpiucf]

By the way, grades came out this week! Thanks to all of you GC law students for putting up with all of my first semester neuroses!!!

[GeekyPenguin]

So I'm applying for jobs right now and this firm that's pretty well known in the area where I'll be practicing is hiring - my problem is that ALL my writing samples are from work I did opposing them in litigation. The only other stuff I have is things currently pending that I can't use or things from classes. This is such a weird situation.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by unspokenone25

It's better than having to underline cites. A partner at my firm won't allow associates to use italics in cites...EVER.

How retro. Whenever I see documents filed that adhere to 1970s format standards I kind of roll my eyes.

As far as the whole regional citation quirk conversation above goes, though, I have to say it happens where I am, too. There are a few things like the abbreviation for our court of appeals that for whatever reason gets abbreviated in a really screwy non-bluebook way. But if you do it bluebook, it just looks weird and out of place in the region -- like you're writing the document from out of state. Who knows... maybe they do it just to screw with out-of-staters.

[LegallyBrunette]

Originally Posted by skylark

How retro. Whenever I see documents filed that adhere to 1970s format standards I kind of roll my eyes.

As far as the whole regional citation quirk conversation above goes, though, I have to say it happens where I am, too. There are a few things like the abbreviation for our court of appeals that for whatever reason gets abbreviated in a really screwy non-bluebook way. But if you do it bluebook, it just looks weird and out of place in the region -- like you're writing the document from out of state. Who knows... maybe they do it just to screw with out-of-staters.

I never realized underlining was considered outdated. That's how I was taught in Legal Writing and that's what's expected at my firm. Then again, it doesn't shock me that Pittsburgh is behind the times on something.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by LegallyBrunette

I never realized underlining was considered outdated. That's how I was taught in Legal Writing and that's what's expected at my firm. Then again, it doesn't shock me that Pittsburgh is behind the times on something.

Ditto for me, and I'm also at a Pittsburgh firm IMO, underlining is easier to read, so I personally prefer it, lol.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by kddani

Ditto for me, and I'm also at a Pittsburgh firm IMO, underlining is easier to read, so I personally prefer it, lol.

Funny how people's perceptions can differ isn't it? I think underlining is harder to read (as in disrupts the flow of reading). Ah well -- tomato, tomahto.

FWIW, I was taught in Legal Research and Writing to use italics if possible (and at the time, it usually wasn't unless you were having a printer was print your brief), otherwise underline. This was in the 1980s. When I clerked, we always underlined in opinions -- when the opinions were printed in the reports, of course, the underlining had been transformed to italics.