As a lifelong student of law, I am trained to check everything thrice and still leave myself wiggle room.

I am, therefore, surprised by people’s chutzpah in holding forth about (even specialised) matters about which they have zero knowledge or experience –or qualifications: +

I have been 'found short and marked up' by several assorted engineers ,chartered accountants & businessmen (in each case with 0 legal qualifications)* on the standard ‘England and Wales’ governing law clause-which has been boldly 'corrected' to 'UK law' , +
and in one case, believe it or not, the ‘kings’ law’(the Apostrophe too as placed!)

*Incidentally, besides professional legal qualifications and many years of International Project Finance legal experience, I have a distinction in Private International Law (that deals with+
governing law clauses) from one of England's top universities.

My English language skills have been found 'wanting' by the European CEO of a leading EPC Contractor who informed me : ‘The English no goood’ .+
This gentleman’s standard letter ‘in English’ consists of throwing in a few words and relying on the reader’s goodwill - to supply all connecting grammar. +
But what stung the most was being 'taken to task' by a gentleman -whose mother tongue is Marathi and who reads Urdu in the Devanagari and not its original script-on my Urdu pronunciation of what he said was Faiz’s ‘gazal’ : ‘mujh se pehli si mohabbat meray mehboob na maang’. +
He went on to give me a DEVASTATING ‘reading’ - which broke every Urdu speaking* ‘ahle – zaban’ bone in my body and rendered me completely speechless-in any known language.+
* I descend from ‘an entrenched’ Urdu speaking ahle -zaban ('speaker and keepers' of Urdu) background - even the simplest mispronunciation of the full throat qāf (common enough even among Urdu speakers) registers a jarring note to my fine tuned years.
ears and years😂

More from Law

There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...


law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:

1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.

2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.

Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.

3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.

4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...

judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.

The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...

You May Also Like