Commonly Confused Words, Part V

I’ve previously posted on words that writers, particularly lawyers, commonly confuse. Those posts are here (that/which/who, more than/over, few(er), less, amount/number, farther/further, since/because/as, among/between, who/whom, attain/obtain), here (a/an/the, counsel/council, e.g.,/i.e., it’s/its, principal/principle, then/than, utilize/use, you’re/your, affect/effect, tortious/tortuous, tack/tact, capitol/capital, motioned/moved, flesh/flush), here (although/while, assure/insure/ensure, complement/compliment, rational/rationale), and here (a couple, a few, some, several, and many).

Today, I’ll cover seven more pairs of commonly confused words.

Born/borne – Both words are past participles of “to bear”; however, only one relates to birth. Use “born” when referring to literal or figurative birth, such as: She was born in California or Wisdom is born from years of experience. “Borne,” on the other hand, refers to the other meanings of “to bear”: such as, to carry, to produce, or to bring about. “Borne” would be proper in the following: Costs associated with this litigation will be borne by the defendant.

 Good/well – “Good” is an adjective, “well” is an adverb. That is, “good” describes and “well” modifies or qualifies. A good lawyer writes well. “Good” in that sentence describes the noun, “lawyer.” (What kind of lawyer? A good one.) “Well” qualifies the verb “writes.” (How does the lawyer write? Well.) The exception to this good/well distinction involves health. If you’re asked How are you?, the grammatically correct answer would be I am well (i.e., your health is good).

Do not use “good” to modify a verb. We might say That lawyer is good at writing, but we certainly wouldn’t say That lawyer writes good.

 Lay/lie – My wonderful colleagues Anne Enquist and Laurel Currie Oates from Seattle University have best explained the distinction between these two words in their book Just Writing: Grammar, Punctuation, and Style for the Legal Writer (4th ed. 2013). I am drawing from their explanation nearly verbatim but for style changes to fit the form here.

Continue ReadingCommonly Confused Words, Part V

NAAC Team Competes in Nationals

20160220_183458The National Appellate Advocacy Competition started with 193 teams. Six regional competitions later, only 24 advanced to the national competition in Chicago April 7-9. One team from Marquette was among those 24 teams.

Cassandra Van Gompel, Daniel Murphy, and Arial Rosenberg (in the above picture from left to right), all 3Ls, won the Brooklyn regional in February to earn their place at nationals. (Murphy also won best oralist at regionals.) The team argued two rounds on Thursday, April 7. Unfortunately, they did not advance to the next round. Each round they argued was very close; in their second round, they lost by less than one point to a team that made the final round.

Congratulations to the team for their outstanding representation of Marquette Law.

Continue ReadingNAAC Team Competes in Nationals

NAAC Teams Rock Brooklyn Regional; One Advances to Nationals

20160220_15553020160220_183458Thirty-three teams from across the country arrived in Brooklyn at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 18, all prepared to present oral arguments in the National Appellate Advocacy Competition regional. Only four would advance to nationals. One of those four will be from Marquette Law.

Continue ReadingNAAC Teams Rock Brooklyn Regional; One Advances to Nationals