Language abuse is posing an existential threat to those around me.

Perhaps it’s being reminded recently to re-read “Politics and the English Language.”  Perhaps it’s journalism’s daily abuse of our language.  Perhaps it’s the despair peculiar to mid-November of the first semester of law school, when students have realized they have learned a lot and, understandably, given the enormous effort they’ve made over the last three months to accomplish that learning, let up, forgetting what I’ve been telling them for those three months: it will be many, many years before they feel in their guts they’re really good at expressing themselves as lawyers and understanding other lawyers.  Perhaps it’s the letter a friend received from her mortgage lender making a sincere and pathetic effort to explain to a human being what it could do for her under the federal government’s recent “baiiout” plan.  Perhaps it’s reading of Malcolm Gladwell’s most recent best-selling insight — it takes 10,000 hours of practice for anyone to become really good at anything — and realizing that maybe it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become a really good legal writer.  Perhaps it’s realizing again, for the thousandth time, that lawyers really do often use their skill with language to obscure and deceive.

At any rate, I am suffering from the cynicism Orwell in that essay mentioned in the first sentence above argues against:

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language — so the argument runs — must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

Can we at least agree on one thing?  Can we stop using the term “existential threat” to refer to a threat that poses a genuine risk of destroying someone or something’s very existence?  As in:

Iran poses an existential threat to Israel.

The Soviet Union during the Cold War posed an existential threat to the United States.

Islamofascism poses an existential threat to Western democratic capitalism.

The term “existential threat” hides the real question — how much of a threat? — behind the idea that if something poses a threat to one’s very existence it is as bad as a threat gets.

Maybe it’s just that I started writing this post at 4am, which I’ve heard is “the new midnight.”

Repeat after me: being a good lawyer means doing good for the client.

Time Ferris, in his post How Not to Use a Lawyer, explains well how lawyers can serve their clients.  Ferri’s observations are a “personal case study” provoked by an obnoxious letter from a laywer representing a business Ferris had actually spoken positively about in his book.  The lawyer had a legitimate request to make to Ferris regarding the specifics of Ferris’s written statement, but the letter was so obnoxious all it did was end up hurting the lawyer’s client.  Ferris’s points:

1. How you say something IS what you say.

2. It’s counterproductive to threaten someone until you determine their incentives to refuse compliance.

3. It’s better to steer the golden goose rather than kill it.

4. Don’t mistake symptoms with root problems, or confuse correlation with causation.

5. If you threaten someone in a digital world, it might become what your prospective customers see first.