Help Needed Please

Thu Feb 22 01:52:42 UTC 2007

As a translator who mainly does technical work (semiconductor
documents, for example) for intellectual property (IP) attorneys, any
talk of legal jargon is always of interest to me.

When dealing with attorneys where I am the client on topics such as
damages or wills, I've always found them to make efforts to match my
level of understanding and to educate me so I am equipped to talk
with them about the issue at hand. When dealing with them when they
are the client, I've found they also work with me to familiarize me
with the concepts of the project at hand. The facility with which
skilled attorneys can jump among levels to explain complex subjects
in a simple manner and discuss the actual topic always amazes me.

Regardless of whether they are working for me or I am working for
them, the attorneys always have more knowledge than I do (other than
my foreign language translation knowledge). There is no doubt but
that I was at the mercy of the ability of my attorney to wheel and
deal when trying to get compensation when I was hit. Regardless of
whether I'm on the payer end or payee end, though, I respect the fact
that my attorney has been through law school and passed the bar exam
just as I respect my medical doctor or chiropractor, also individuals
who have endless technical knowledge they share with me as needed. As
a consumer of specialist services, I do have power because I'm paying
money, but there is clearly a knowledge inequity at play as well.

Beyond simply jargon is sentence complexity. I recently ventured into
the field of brief translation. The way of writing those is different
from anything I'd even seen before. The sentence structures I've seen
tend to be simple, but filled with very long clauses. For example,
it's something like, They said that the X was developed based on the
idea Y before we developed Z and A, but as demonstrated by B, our C
was actually developed before their D much less their X. Replace B
with an expression like "the fact that a filing had already been made
with the authorities in Taiwan" and you can see how complex this gets
even though the vocabulary is not. The attorneys file these back and
forth, and I'm sure discuss their content to a degree with their
corporate clients at some point.

Another power relationship is between judges and attorneys. I once
worked on a case where the judge was adamant that nothing complex was
going to cross his/her desk. I spoke with a paralegal for 45 minutes
on the phone toning down the language of the translation.

I hope that gives you some ideas. Good luck with the project!

Benjamin Barrett

On Feb 21, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Jamie Landers wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Jamie Landers <jme1283 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Help Needed Please
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> John,
>
> I apologize if I offended you in any way.  Maybe I did not explain
> myself
> very clearly.  The project that I am undertaking is not only
> partial to
> attorneys, but my professor suggested that we focus on one
> profession and
> she believed that Law would be one profession that would have an
> abundant
> amount of information.
>
> Brenda Lester said this about my project:
> "Legal terms become somewhat of an elitist barrier, not because of
> how much
> money the attorney makes, but because he or she can define certain
> terms,
> can speak a special language, and make the language work for the
> client."
>
> This sums up what my group is trying to accomplish; however, spoken
> more
> eloquently.  I apologize again if you feel that my group was trying to
> degrade those who study law.  We understand that Lawyers, along
> with many
> other social groups, use jargon; however, my professor recommended
> that we
> narrow our project down to one profession and she suggested the
> field of law
> saying that she was sure that it would have lots of information.
>
> I appreciate your time to respond to my email and I apologize for any
> misinterpretations.
>
> Jamie
>
> On 2/21/07, Baker, John <JMB at stradley.com> wrote:
>>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society < ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       "Baker, John" < JMB at STRADLEY.COM>
>> Subject:      Re: Help Needed Please
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------
>>
>>
>>        I question the premises of your project.  First, it's far from
>> clear to me, as a lawyer, that I have an elevated status in society.
>> The case could as well be made that lawyers as a group are
>> particularly
>> disdained.  I certainly don't know of any other profession that is
>> the
>> brunt of so many jokes.  To the extent that individual lawyers have
>> status, it's arguably from their education and income, rather than
>> because they are lawyers.
>>
>>        Second, if there is an unequal power relationship (and there
>> is), it favors the client (which is what I assume you mean by
>> "Patron"),
>> and not the lawyer.  I've worked all night many times for clients,
>> but I
>> can't think of a single client who has ever done that for me.  The
>> power
>> relationship may favor the lawyer on some occasions, such as pro bono
>> representation of criminal defendants or contingency fee
>> representation
>> of individual tort plaintiffs.  These power relationships have
>> nothing
>> to do with how the lawyer talks and a great deal to do with the
>> lawyer's
>> fees.
>>
>>        Third, it's contrary to my experience that lawyers use
>> jargon to
>> maintain elevated status either in general or in their relationships
>> with their clients.  To the extent that the lawyer's speech is
>> used to
>> gain status, it's because of the substantive information
>> contained, not
>> the wording used.  For example, the lawyer might say "You can't do
>> that,
>> that would violate Rule 10b-5."  It doesn't matter whether the lawyer
>> calls it Rule 10b-5, or the antifraud rule, or some other name.  It's
>> the information being conveyed that gives the status.
>>
>>        Lawyers do use jargon, of course.  Every group needs jargon in
>> order to convey concepts that are of particular interest to that
>> group.
>> But I would argue that jargon is primarily for in-group use.
>>
>>
>> John Baker
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU ] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Jamie Landers
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:03 PM
>> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>> Subject: Help Needed Please
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> My name is Jamie Landers and I am a senior at Kennesaw State
>> University
>> in Georgia.  I have a project to due that I am hoping someone can
>> help
>> me with.  The project is for my Linguistics class and it is over
>> unequal
>> power relationships.  My group is focusing on Lawyer/Patron
>> relationships and mainly how Lawyers use jargon in order to maintain
>> their elevated status in society.  If anyone can help me out, or has
>> research that may prove beneficial, please email me back at
>> jme1283 at gmail.com.  Thank you so much!

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org