Congratulations. You've reached the end of another long, hard week. Your reward: another ATL poll on a random question of style, usage, or grammar. Prior polls can be reviewed by clicking here (and scrolling down).

In last week's poll, we asked you whether you preferred the term "lawyer" or "attorney." Almost 4,000 votes were cast in the online poll, and the winner was clear: "attorney," with almost 70 percent of the vote. Here are a few representative comments, from readers who voted for the winner:

"Lawyer sounds silly when uttered by a midwesterner (where I am), whereas attorney has a better ring to it."

"Attorney if person has an IQ above 90; lawyer if below."

"[A]ttorney conveys intelligence and respect; lawyer doesn't. I've noticed that most laypeople tend to refer to us as 'lawyers' while most attorneys refer to themselves as such."

Now, on to this week's poll. It's inspired by Justice Scalia's recent complaint about the use of contractions in briefs, which "drag the courts down to the level of the marketplace." It's a point of disagreement between the justice and Bryan Garner, his co-author on Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges.

In the book (pp. 114-19), Garner defends contractions by arguing that they allow you to "achieve a more conversational rhythm in your writing," thereby enhancing readability. Justice Scalia disapproves of them because "[f]ormality bespeaks dignity," and some judges "will take [contraction usage] as an affront to the dignity of the court."

Garner notes that such distinguished jurists as Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, and Alex Kozinski use contractions in their writing. Justice Scalia responds:

As for Judges Posner, Easterbrook, and Kozinski, life tenure is a wonderful thing; neither they nor any client of theirs pays a price for their contractions. (Kozinski, for Pete's sake, has been known to write an opinion with 200 movie titles embedded within it.)

What is -- or what's -- your practice when it comes to contractions in briefs and other forms of legal writing? Take our poll, and share your views in the comments.

On Tuesday evening, we attended An Evening with Justice Antonin Scalia, sponsored by the Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society. Justice Scalia spoke about his new book, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges; took questions on a wide range of subjects, during an impressively long Q-and-A session; and signed copies of his book for the adoring masses.

The event took place in a packed ballroom -- standing room only -- at the Marriott Wardman Park. If you're interested, you can read a more detailed write-up, after the jump.

Happy Friday! Time for one of our quirky queries about style, usage, and grammar. On Fridays past, we have solicited your views on preferred email sign-offs, whether to refer to a marked-up document as a "blackline" or a "redline", whether to use "pleaded" or "pled" in legal writing, how to spell a certain naughty word, and how to pronounce "substantive".

Here is today's question, from a curious reader:

Lawyer v. Attorney: I have always wondered what the difference between these two monikers is. I am both (I guess).

Recently I introduced myself as an attorney at a party [in Austin, Texas]. My friend pulled me aside and said, "You should call yourself a lawyer; attorneys are ambulance chasers."

I'm an associate at an Am Law 100 firm, and would love to know definitively whether I am a lawyer or an attorney. Do you think you guys could make a post about this subject?

We mentioned this question to one friend -- not an attorney/lawyer herself, but the daughter of one. Her take:

Well, my dad refers to people he respects as attorneys, and people he hates as lawyers. We're from Alabama. That's the only distinction I've ever noticed.

So the Texans seem to like "lawyer," but the Alabamans seem to favor "attorney." Odd.

What do the dictionaries say? From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

attorney: one who is legally appointed by another to transact business for the firm; specifically, a legal agent qualified to act for suitors and defendants in legal proceedings.

lawyer: one whose profession is to conduct lawsuits for clients or to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters.

From Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.):

attorney: In the most general sense this term denotes an agent or substitute, or one who is appointed and authorized to act in the place or stead of another.... In its most common usage, however, unless a contrary meaning is clearly intended, this term means "attorney at law", "lawyer" or "counselor at law".

lawyer: A person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel, or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law..... See also Attorney....

The term "attorney" may emphasize the "agency" aspect of legal practice more. But this seems like a fairly narrow distinction. It's not surprising, then, that the Associated Press Stylebook declares that "[i]n common usage the words are interchangeable."

But the subjective, stylistic question of which term sounds better remains. How should practitioners of law introduce themselves at cocktail parties?

What's your view? Share it in the comments, and take our poll below.

LAWYER VS. ATTORNEY - Which do you use? [The PR Lawyer]

Today is Friday, when we present for your consideration quirky queries about style, grammar, and usage. E.g., how to pronounce "substantive"; is a marked-up document a "blackline," or a "redline"; and do you prefer "pleaded" or "pled" in legal writing.

This latest poll may seem a little edgy (especially since today is Good Friday). But it actually presents a serious and legitimate question now facing Second Circuit judges (and their law clerks). Legal research reveals a split of authority; the courts have been inconsistent.

For background, read this post, including all the updates and comments. Now, the question:

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Second Circuit Gets That 'Not So Fresh' Feeling

Is it SUBstantive or subSTANtive? Our dictionary tells us to emphasize the first syllable.

A lovely Canadian professor at our law school emphasizes the second syllable, and although our affection for him is great, every time he says "subSTANtive" we take away ten points on our completely subjective professor-grading scale. How about THAT, professor? Students grade YOU TOO. (Just kidding. Kinda.)

Many ATL readers have a weakness for obscure debates about punctuation, grammar, usage, and style. See, e.g., here, here, and here. It makes sense; after all, lawyers are paid to worry about such things as proper comma placement.

So we weren't surprised when several of you drew our attention to this interesting New York Times article, all about the semicolon. The piece, currently at the top of the Most Emailed Articles list, has a legal angle:

People have lost fortunes and even been put to death because of imprecise punctuation involving semicolons in legal papers. In 2004, a court in San Francisco rejected a conservative group’s challenge to a statute allowing gay marriage because the operative phrases were separated incorrectly by a semicolon instead of by the proper conjunction.

According to the Times, "whatever one’s personal feelings about semicolons, some people don’t use them because they never learned how." Are you a member of that group?

Celebrating the Semicolon in a Most Unlikely Location [New York Times]

Today is Friday, and you know what that means at ATL: randomness and triviality! Not that this site doesn't already wallow in randomness and triviality, of course. But on Fridays, we go the extra mile.

In a prior random Friday poll, we asked for your views on "pleaded" versus "pled" (and "pled" won; results here). Today we also have a question about writing and style. From a tipster:

Suggestion for slow news period. I have always been amazed (and annoyed) at the salutations and endings used in business emails from attorneys. The ubiquitous "Best regards" seems to be the party favorite. But I've seen many other options.

The tipster then provided a laundry list of email endings, which we've turned into a poll. Check it out, after the jump.

Today is Friday, when we entertain offbeat reader requests. Like this one:

I've billed a couple of hours this week arguing with different partners about whether "pled" or "pleaded" is the preferred past tense form of "plead." Can I get a poll? I wonder what Biglaw associates and old-school partners have to say about it.

I've generally found that most younger attorneys use "pled" while the more senior attorneys prefer "pleaded." Anyway, just random thoughts for a Friday morning.

Back in our brief-writing days, we used "pleaded," which we felt better captured the "past-ness" of the event. But that's just our opinion. What do you think?

Yesterday's New York Times contains an interesting op-ed about how to read the Second Amendment. Adam Freedman -- author of The Party of the First Part: The Curious World of Legalese, a potential stocking stuffer for the lawyer in your life -- parses the use of commas in the amendment. He concludes:

[At the time of the Second Amendment's drafting,] lawmakers took a devil-may-care approach to punctuation. Often, the whole business of punctuation was left to the discretion of scriveners, who liked to show their chops by inserting as many varied marks as possible.

Another problem with trying to find meaning in the Second Amendment’s commas is that nobody is certain how many commas it is supposed to have. The version that ended up in the National Archives has three, but that may be a fluke. Legal historians note that some states ratified a two-comma version. At least one recent law journal article refers to a four-comma version.

The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence.

... [W]hen the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.

In fairness to the other side of the debate, that's just one scholar's opinion. Many others, including prominent liberal academics, disagree.

What do you think? Take our poll, after the jump.

* Gay marriages legally-cognizable-relationships-that-will-probably-get-called-civil-unions are coming to New Jersey.

* Superstar lawyer Ted Olson, who is not gay, got married -- to a lovely lady named Lady. And ATL has the exclusive photos to prove it.

* Law firms are tying the knot too. The latest to head for the altar: Dewey Ballantine and Orrick.

* Things are going less smoothly for celebrities. Country music star Sara Evans is getting divorced. Jane Pauley is filing suit. Naomi Campbell is getting arrested. And Foxy Brown is getting sentenced.

* Paralegal pay ain't half bad, as long as you work for Biglaw -- and put in lots of overtime.

* Think grammar and punctuation are silly and useless? Listen to the cautionary tale of the costly comma.

* Justice Scalia: You like him, you really like him!

* As for your Least Favorite Supreme Court Justice, we'll keep the polls open over the weekend. To vote, click here.

* And if you'd like to cast a ballot in a more frivolous poll, help Judge Janice Rogers Brown pick a hairstyle. To vote, click here.

The lawyers among you should know: Little things matter a lot.

Earlier this month, we told you about the missing "L" that cost a county $40,000. But $40K is chump change compared to the million dollars that turns upon an allegedly misplaced comma:

[A] dispute between Rogers Communications of Toronto, Canada’s largest cable television provider, and a telephone company in Atlantic Canada, Bell Aliant, is over the phone company’s attempt to cancel a contract governing Rogers’ use of telephone poles. But the argument turns on a single comma in the 14-page contract. The answer is worth 1 million Canadian dollars ($888,000 U.S.).

Citing the “rules of punctuation,” Canada’s telecommunications regulator recently ruled that the comma allowed Bell Aliant to end its five-year agreement with Rogers at any time with notice. Rogers argues that pole contracts run for five years and automatically renew for another five years, unless a telephone company cancels the agreement before the start of the final 12 months.

(Gavel bang: blah blah blog.)

Canadian lawyers are being hired in significant numbers by major American law firms. They claim it's because of their superior training and lawyering skills. But Canucks make drafting mistakes too, eh?

Now it's time for you to play judge. Here's the contractual language at issue:

“This agreement shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”

The regulator concluded that the second comma meant that the part of the sentence describing the one-year notice for cancellation applied to both the five-year term as well as its renewal. Therefore, the regulator found, the phone company could escape the contract after as little as one year.

What do you think? We don't have a strong view. (But the fact that Rogers is attempting to bolster its position by relying upon the French version of the contract makes us lean in favor of Bell Aliant.)

The Comma That Costs 1 Million Dollars (Canadian) [New York Times via How Appealing]
Million-Dollar Comma May Aid Canadian Company [NPR via bla blah blog]
Why is grammar so very important? [blah blah blog]

Earlier: Our Kingdom for an "L"
Didn't Get a Biglaw Job? Blame Canada!

Ann Althouse raises a potential quibble with the above quip, made by Justice Antonin Scalia in a public appearance this past weekend. She writes:

It would be better to say "not everything that is stupid is unconstitutional." "Everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional" can be read to mean that every stupid thing is constitutional, when plenty of stupid things are unconstitutional. I know there's some argument over whether this should actually be considered a usage error. The argument that it's not usually brings up Shakespeare's "All that glisters is not gold." Why didn't he write "Not all that glisters is gold"?

Howard Bashman criticizes Professor Althouse for engaging in "untoward nitpicking on the internet." But it seems to us that Althouse, after raising this possible ambiguity, ultimately comes down on the same side as Bashman:

[F]orget about this particular language nicety, I'd say. I'm rather glad to myself, since I was personally needled for years by someone who was inordinately vigilant on this usage point.

To support her position that this is much ado about nothing, Althouse cites Fowler. And as we've pointed out in these pages, Justice Scalia is a devout follower of Fowler.

We say: Everything is illuminated that is not unilluminated. Including the dispute over this issue of usage.

"It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional." [Althouse]
Does "Everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional" equal "Every stupid thing is constitutional"? [How Appealing]

Earlier: The Eyes of the Law: A Legitimate Use of "Scalito"
The "S" Clash: Scalia's Position Explained
Read This Only If You're a Grammar Nerd

* This week we crowned America's hottest law school deans: Evan Caminker, of Michigan, and Asha Rangappa, of Yale. When contacted by ATL, both of them issued gracious statements.

* So there's no contest for you to vote in over the weekend. But please participate in our informal reader poll, seeking to ascertain your Favorite Supreme Court Justice.

* Speaking of the justices, don't they have more important things to fight over than grammar? And who knew that bright-line Nino could be so nuanced?

* A theme for this past week: Celebrities' legal woes. E.g., Michael Jackson, Lindsay Lohan, Wesley Snipes, Madonna, and Anna Nicole Smith.

* Another theme: Getting off. E.g., Junior Gotti, Nathan Hecht, and the Duke lacrosse team (but from "innocent sexual activity").

* Second Circuit Judge John M. Walker hits a New Haven police officer in a traffic accident. The matter is under investigation.

* Global warming practice groups -- are they heating up? Or are they the next "Y2K" practice groups?

* Eh, what do you care? You can't get a Biglaw job anyway -- they're all going to Canadians.

* Team ATL has a new recruit -- and he's proud to be an American. Meet B Clerker.

* If you hate kids, then stop reading here. But if you like 'em, then click here, scroll down, and read about the amusing antics of attorney spawn.

Here's a brief update to our post from yesterday, concerning the divergence among Supreme Court justices over whether to include a second "s" at the end of the possessive form of a proper noun already ending in "s." E.g., Kansas' or Kansas's.

Justice Thomas says no ("Kansas'"), while Justice Souter says yes ("Kansas's"). We're with Justice Souter on this one -- as is Steve Dillard, although it pains him to admit it.

Justice Scalia appears to flip flop on the question. Jonathan Starble of the Legal Times offered a theory to explain Justice Scalia's approach: "He believes the extra 's' should be omitted if the existing 's' is preceded by a hard consonant sound."

We did some poking around, and Starble's theory is essentially correct. Past clerks tried to convince Justice Scalia to use the "s" no matter how it sounds (unless a plural possessive is involved, in which case only the apostrophe is needed). This is Justice Souter's view, Strunk and White's view, and our view as well.

But Justice Scalia consulted Fowler's, and he could find no rule to this effect. So he declined to follow the clerkly counsel. Instead, he "goes by the ear," or by how it sounds: If it sounds ugly, then add only the apostrophe; if it sounds okay, then add the "s" as well.

Generally we're all in favor of making decisions based on aesthetic considerations. But in this case, we respectfully dissent.

Gimme an 'S': The High Court's Grammatical Divide [Legal Times]
Mark This Date Down [Southern Appeal]

Earlier: Read This Only If You're a Grammar Nerd

Okay, we're nerds. We love this kind of stuff -- even if some of you might find it soporific. From a delightful piece by Jonathan Starble in the Legal Times:

As one of its final acts last term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Kansas v. Marsh, a case involving the constitutionality of a state death-penalty statute. The 5-4 decision exposed the deep divide that exists among the nation's intellectual elite regarding one of society's most troubling issues -- namely, whether the possessive form of a singular noun ending with the letter "s" requires an additional "s" after the apostrophe.

In his majority opinion in Marsh, Justice Thomas dispensed with the "'s" at the end: "Kansas' capital sentencing statute." In contrast, Justice Souter retained the additional "s": "Kansas's capital sentencing statute provides..."

Sorry, Justice Thomas; we're with Justice Souter on this one. We follow the rule of Strunk and White: "Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's."

Justice Scalia "goes both ways." Sometimes he uses the "'s," and other times he doesn't. How to explain this apparent inconsistency? Starble theorizes:

Scalia appears to believe that most singular nouns ending in "s" still demand an additional "s" after the apostrophe. Thus, in his Marsh concurrence, Scalia repeatedly referred to the relevant law as Kansas's statute. He similarly added an "s" to form the words Ramos's and witness's.

Yet in other parts of the opinion, Scalia added only an apostrophe to form the words Stevens', Adams' and Tibbs'. Based on this, it would seem that he believes the extra "s" should be omitted if the existing "s" is preceded by a hard consonant sound. So, whereas Thomas makes his "s" determination based strictly on spelling, Scalia appears to look beyond the spelling and examine pronunciation as well.

Oh Nino, we're disappointed. We thought that you, of all the justices, would appreciate a clear and concise rule over needless complexity. Your middle-of-the-road, split-the-baby approach to the "'s" controversy is so very "Sandra Day O'Connor." And we know how you feel about her wishy-washy jurisprudence.

Here's our favorite paragraph in the whole piece:

Is it fair to deprive a small minority of the population of the right to assert possession in the same manner as everyone else [by adding 's]? Whereas Souter would answer an unequivocal no, Thomas would likely point out that he has gone his whole life with only one "s." Because it worked for him, no one else in a similar situation should receive any preferential treatment. People who happen to be born with names ending in "s" should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and learn to go without the additional letter. After all, it builds character.

Gimme an 'S': The High Court's Grammatical Divide [Legal Times via WSJ Law Blog]