Commonly Confused

Writing effectively is an essential part of succeeding in law school and beyond. You want to make sure your words are clear, concise and, most importantly, correct. Below are some terms that are commonly misused or confused in legal papers.

1. Ensure v. Assure v. Insure – These three words sound similar and are all verbs generally meaning “to make sure”. However, they are not interchangeable. Ensure is something done to guarantee an event or condition. Assure is an act done to a living being to relieve doubt. Insure has to do with limiting financial liability. 
2. Council v. Counsel – You definitely do not want to confuse these when meeting with clients. Counsel refers to advice given to someone, or a lawyer who represents someone in a court of law. Council is a group of people who are chosen to make rules, laws, or decisions. 
3. Affect v. Effect – These two are commonly used improperly. Affect is a verb meaning to influence. Effect is a noun meaning result.
4. Precedent v. Precedence – You will see the importance of these in your writing and case briefing! Precedent refers to a case that has come before the case in which a lawyer is currently dealing. (The plural is precedents.) Precedence relates to ranking in order of importance or urgency.
5. Whether v. Whether or Not – If you’ve had Dean Sullivan, you already know there’s a difference. Whether expresses some doubt. On its own, the word implies the “or not”, making it redundant to add it. In addition, leaving the “or not” off, makes it easier to answer a legal issue with a yes or no answer!

Are there other words or phrases you need clarified? Leave them in the comments below. 

P.S. There is never a wrong time to reach out for writing help. If you don’t know who to contact, please e-mail me (taylor.mace@msl.edu) and I can connect you to the best person.

- Taylor Mace

Scientific Sentence Reform

Back in 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that it was impermissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to execute a juvenile offender under the age of 18 when they committed a capital crime. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). In 2021, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether the constitutional requirement that prohibits mandatory life without parole sentences for defendants under 18 extends to those defendants aged 18-21. In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 197 Wash.2d 305, 482 P.3d 276 (2021). Though the court re-examined the penalty of youthful offenders, sixteen years has allowed science to have a say in the decision.

Neuroscience played a large role in determining the court’s decision. Throughout the majority opinion, concurrence, and dissent, the word “brain” was used nearly 2 dozen times and the words “neuroscience” or “neurological” 13 times. Neuroscientists now know that the differences between juveniles and adults, as recognized in Roper, are present in those over 18. These differences can extend to nearly 20 years of age, leaving the brain undeveloped until this time. 

    No two offenders are the same, however. Think of your friends or siblings. Each person matured at their own pace, without a reasonable level of predictability. There is a variability in individual attributes of youthfulness that should grant the court discretion as to when these youthful qualities should apply. No meaningful neurological bright line exists between the age of 17 and 20, meaning there is no clear-cut answer. Therefore, courts should have discretion to consider the mitigating qualities of youth into account when sentencing defendants within this age range.

    The court held that just as courts must exercise discretion before sentencing a 17 year old to die in prison, so must they exercise the same discretion when sentencing an 18, 19, or 20 year old. The court reasoned that “biological and psychological development continues into the early twenties, well beyond the age of majority”. This conclusion makes mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional for offenders younger than 21. 

        Justice Owens, dissenting, presents an argument that should be given thought, too. She reasons that redrawing the lines of a juvenile based on brain development evidence can leave room for, perhaps, too much discretion. It begs the question of when a person should be held fully accountable as an adult.

Where do you believe the line should be drawn? What else should the courts examine before drawing that line?

In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke, 197 Wash.2d 305, 482 P.3d 276 (2021).
Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005).

-Taylor Mace

Welcome Back!

Welcome back to school AND to the Massachusetts School of Law Blog. My name is Taylor Mace, and I am a 3L student who will be taking over the blog as Editor in Chief. This will be a platform where students, staff, and faculty can connect and read about issues related to our legal education. I plan to prepare a new post each week with topics spanning study tips, current events, and comments on new cases or updates in the legal field. 

Have something to say? Voice your opinion in the comment section!

Have something to write? E-mail your proposed blog post to taylor.mace@msl.edu and you may be featured on the blog!

I look forward to sharing these posts with you. Have a great semester and talk to you soon!

-Taylor

Part Two of Top Three Ways to Market Yourself and Your Law Firm

      Here we are in the last week of April! Can you believe it? Next week is May, which means the semester is almost coming to a close! I know, by the end of the semester your energy is drained, you’re ready for summer, and you’re ready for a vacation. Just give these next few weeks your full potential, study hard, and ace those exams. You can do it! 

         This is actually the last Blog Post of this semester. I cannot believe how fast time flew by. Thank you for reading my posts and for commenting. The reason why I wanted to start this platform is to bring our community together, even during a pandemic, to discuss current cases and stay informed with the cases the courts are presently handling. I have also shared my personal stories and knowledge with you over the past school year whether it be about exam studying tips, how to network, why it’s important to stay motivated, etc. All this just for you! I want you to succeed in this profession, and I know you will. I hope you enjoyed reading my posts. As a fellow 3L student, I know how challenging it can be trying to stay informed on present cases while studying for exams and preparing for class. Just know, it can be done, and I am proud of you for taking the time to read my posts, it shows your motivation for this profession and I love it! This growing platform will be passed on to another motivated student. Stay tuned for the fall semester! 

        I’ve gotten requests to write more about ways to market oneself and their law firm, so justice will be served only if I do so! Hope the following three more ways help! Like I had mentioned earlier, these are tips I’ve gained over the years and from my personal knowledge. I want to share it with you because I believe we should uplift each other and share our knowledge with those around us while pursuing our own passion. Happy Reading!

Three More Ways to Market Yourself and Your Law Firm

-Website: Almost every law firm today has a website to the point where it’s become the trend that if you don’t have a website, you’re behind. It’s known that a website is a great interactive tool to engage potential clients to your firm, but what exactly should an ideal website have? In my opinion, I think a website should have the following: Attorney Profile Page, Live Chat, Awards, Client Reviews, Cases Won, Practice Areas, Contact Information, and an Inquiry Page. An Attorney Profile Page will allow a potential client to learn more about you and the attorneys in your firm. Include photos, a brief description of the attorney including their educational background, specialty, and hobbies. This will make your website more personable. Including a Live Chat option will give immediate assistance to potential clients and possibly get them in the schedule for a consultation appointment. Immediate assistance is key in an advancing society. Listing the awards your firm has received will advance the status of your firm and be a great seller of your services. It provides assurance to potential clients that they are making the right decision to move forward with you. Client Reviews are essential because they come from clients who were once potential clients just like the people you’re advertising for in the first place. Displaying authentic reviews on your website will give your law firm credibility, trustworthiness, and give your potential clients a glimpse of reality on how it is working with you. Include a Cases Won page as that will give potential clients confidence to contract with you. It’s great leverage for you and your firm to display your wins. Lastly, include your contact information, practice areas, and inquiry page so potential clients can see whether you’re the kind of attorney they’re looking for, how they can contact you, and if you are indeed the kind of attorney they’re looking for, they’ll have a small box where they can write to you about their case and you can take it from there!      

-YouTube Channel: This is not much of a common practice…yet. I have come across a few attorney YouTube profiles and I thought hmmm, this is a great idea! Taking a moment to video record yourself speaking about your firm, a recent case you’ve won, or current law is a great marketing strategy prominently because potential clients will be hearing from YOU, seeing YOU, gaining knowledge from YOU, the attorney they are considering to hire. It’s a great way to engage potential clients to you and your firm because it’s raw footage of you speaking the truth about your firm. Watching a video v. reading, I think is more engaging for people, especially those who are visual learners. It’s a fun way to engage the community and get your name out there! Consider it, if you’re not camera shy!   

-Billboards: I know billboards are more on the expensive side, ranging from $750 - $14,000/month depending on the location, whether it’s the city or suburbs and the traffic. Once you make enough to afford one, I think you should invest in one because your firm will be on display, over a city, catching many, many, many eyes! Put up a beautiful smiling picture of you, put your number in a vibrant font, and a catchy, kid-friendly slogan, and I don’t think you should be surprised hearing your phone ring throughout the day. If you ask me, I would put money down for one if I have the means. Think about it! 

What’s Your Favorite Marketing Strategy?

Thank you once again for your support! Stay Motivated! -Sovmya George

Delayed Cancer Diagnosis

        Wow, look at us in the second to last week of April! How are you doing? I want you to take a moment and take in your surroundings, appreciate where you are, how far you’ve come, and appreciate yourself! You have come a long way. You should be so proud of yourself! The semester is almost over, the weather is getting warmer (minus the random snowfall that occurred), and summer is almost here! I hope you have a beautiful week ahead! This week, I have a medical malpractice case I want to share with you. Read on to find out more details on this Plaintiff’s case and his delayed cancer diagnosis.

         On April 30, 2009, the Plaintiff, who is a smoker who smoked about one to two packs a day, reported to the emergency department because she had consistent abdominal pain and chest pain. The Plaintiff has a history of costochondritis which is inflammation of the cartilage that connects the rib to the sternum (breastbone). While in the emergency department, a resident and an attending physician ordered a chest X-ray to determine whether the symptoms were signaling pneumonia, infiltrate, pulmonary edema, or congestive heart failure. 

        Once the X-ray results were ready, they were reviewed by a radiologist who observed a nodular opacity (round shadow) measuring about 7 mm projecting over the left lower chest. The radiologist recommended another a repeat chest X-ray or chest CT to confirm and for further evaluation. 

            In the meantime, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the Emergency department and was told that the chest X-ray was normal. However, later, the emergency department doctor added an addendum to discharge summary indicating that there was a nodule present on the X-ray but that it was likely just an “X-ray artifact” but should be followed up with a CT or another X-ray. It is disputed whether the doctor ever told the Plaintiff of such findings on the chest X-ray. 

            Over the next few years, the Plaintiff continued to see her primary care physician for sick visits but the chest X-ray results were never discussed. Along with that, no repeat chest X-rays or chest CT scans were performed on the Plaintiff. 

           Thereafter, on March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff reported with persistent cough, shortness of breath, and dyspnea (difficult breathing) every time she exhaled. A chest X-ray was performed on the Plaintiff which revealed a 4 cm mass over her left lower chest. At that time, Plaintiff was diagnosed was Stage 4 lung cancer with metastases to the brain, lung, and lymph nodes. The Plaintiff began chemotherapy and radiation therapy in May of 2013. 

       The Plaintiff claimed the Defendants should have communicated better regarding the need for possible follow-up with a chest CT. The Defendants however contended that there was no specific reason to get a chest CT and that the Plaintiff was aware of the finding and never asked her doctors about any follow-up imaging.

            The case settled prior to trial in April of 2020 for $2 million. Around the time of the settlement, the Plaintiff’s lung cancer was stable and she was no longer undergoing any treatment. She continued to work and live independently.

Massachusetts Lawyer’s Weekly Vo. 50, No. 13

Would You Advocate for the Plaintiff or Defendants? Why?

Title IX Case

    How are you doing? Wishing you a beautiful and blessed week ahead! Stay strong, the semester is almost over! As finals are approaching, I want you to not freight, but be determined, stay focused, and keep a motivated mind. You can perform well on your finals, and you will perform well on them! Do not doubt yourself. Know you can conquer, and know you will conquer. This week, I have a Title IX case to share with you. It’s about a Professor who brought a Title IX action against his Employer and the Employer attempting to dismiss the case saying the Professor is preempted from bringing such a claim. Read more to find out what happens!

A Professor, after being terminated from his job, filed a lawsuit against his Employer for violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. The reason why the Employer terminated the Professor’s employment was because a student had made sexual harassment allegations against the Professor. The Professor thought his termination was unfair because he believed the student’s allegations were biased. The Employer argued that the Professor was preempted from bringing a lawsuit under Title IX because it only protected students. The Professor counter-argued explaining he was not preempted because Title IX provides protection not just students, but for professors as well. 

Title IX states in relevant part, “No person shall, on the basis of sex…be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681(a). 

The Court reasoned that, “although the Courts of Appeal are split on the question of whether Title VII preempts employment-discrimination claims under Title IX, the Third, Fourth, and Sixth circuits have decided that employees may proceed with such claims.” Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the plain language of the statute suggests that Title IX was intended to provide private recourse for more than just students. In conclusion, the Court denied the Employer’s Motion to Dismiss the Professor’s Title IX claims.

Massachusetts Lawyer’s Weekly Vo. 50, No. 6 

Do You Agree with the Professor or the Employer? Why?

Man Hires Undercover Federal Agent to Commit Murder

    Wow! Happy Easter! Can you believe it’s April already? This means, just about a month and a half left until the end of the semester. How exciting! You should be very proud of yourself for working hard to make it this far. Do not quit now! You came all this far only to go forward and get your J.D. degree! You can do this! 

    This week, I have a short case to bring before you. It’s about a man who hired an undercover federal agent to commit murder of a woman. Read on to find out more!

    A Massachusetts man, age 54, was charged on January 29th with one count of murder-for-hire. What happened was, the man had complained to someone (we’ll call him Person) about a woman who was seeking to bring a restraining order against the man. The man asked that Person if they knew anyone that can help the man murder the woman. Immediately after this conversation, that Person reported to the police about the man’s plan. The police then told the Person that a federal agent will act as the individual who is willing to help the man kill the woman. The Person thereafter told the man that he knew of someone who is willing to help commit the murder. 

    Subsequently, the man met with the undercover agent in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. They discussed and settled the payment price at $10,000 for the undercover agent to commit the murder. The man called the murder plan the “demolition job”. The man showed the undercover agent a photograph of the woman and also shared her location. On January 29th, the man even provided a $1,500 deposit to the undercover agent to commit the murder. That same day, the undercover agent revealed himself and the man was arrested and charged. 

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Vo. 50, No. 6.

#StayInformed