Related Posts
Any advice on moving from L4 to L5 in Amazon?
Thank you all for the Super Bowl Bowl!
Pretty sure everyone knows I’m stoned rn
Any Metallica fans here ?
Is fishbowl only available on the US App Store?
Additional Posts in Law
How do you wind down after a rough day?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.




Rising Star
I haven’t seen this as a convention in transactional work.
I agree with P1. I don’t think it is a convention.
This is absolutely the convention in the asset finance space, and I’ve never gotten an answer as to why.
I once tried to change it when I was the master of the document a long time ago and the other side took it out and corrected what my assistant spent a while doing on one of our forms. I just gave up. Not willing to die on that hill. But an old boss of mine told me sometimes it pays to bitch and moan about stuff that doesn’t really matter, give up, and get something in that you actually care about—or hope your adversary doesn’t notice it.
Pro
Because they don’t often hire litigators for transactional roles…
To make more work for litigators
I think it’s 50/50 in corporate documents. I’m a big fan of the Oxford comma. It’s absolutely necessary for appropriate reading comprehension and legal interpretation quite often. If I’m drafting I use it, or if I’m otherwise making a comment to a sentence anyway, I’ll add it, but I otherwise cringe every time I let it go.
Just like the rampant misuse of the word “which” that should be, more often than not, that”. Drives me batty but I can’t change them all (no matter how much I want to!!).
That one, OC 1, is where we differ. I don’t mind justification, and it does look cleaner, but it produces some rather weird results with paragraph alignment. And hyphenating things like a “nationally-known” person or even a “wholly-owned” subsidiary drives me insane. You do not need the hyphen in that sense.