« CA2 (7.27.05) | Main | CA5 - The Girlfriend Problem and the Attorney Client Privilege »

July 28, 2005



The author presents great subject matter but with poor grammar. In the first sentence no less she lacks parallelism. To be correct, the sentence should end "for possessing marijuana and giving a false name to police." What's happened to our education system when students on the leading journals of first-tier law schools cannot write?! Also, just a side note, some circuits' unpublished opinions may indeed be unpublished. Although most circuits' "unpublished" opinions are published on Westlaw and Lexis, the Eleventh Circuit's are not. However, just a few months ago, the Eleventh Circuit began posting unpublished opinions on its official webpage. So, one could consider the Eleventh Circuit's unpublished opinions to be published now. Does anyone know of any other circuits do not publish unpublished opinions at all or at least not on Westlaw on Lexis?


Oops! Error on my point. The last sentence should be "Does anyone know of any other circuits that do not publish unpublished opinions at all or at least not on Westlaw or Lexis?" I'm so embarrassed!



You really need to take a step back and think about what is important. It is usually pretty easy to find fault with someone’s grammar, in fact, most people can and will do it to people they don’t like. It is a pretty typical law firm or law school maneuver. I have seen it time and time again. It gets old. It doesn’t impress.

I could point out that this blog has covered how the E-government act has changed the nature of what is “published” and “unpublished” (though I think some lawyers understand it better than I do) but I think that you are more interested in busting on some girl you decided you don’t like. This post was aimed at the Fed. Cir. practitioners (and law clerks) who might be interested in seeing someone’s take on the issue.

(Because I am feeling particularly nice today I decided not to post your law firm.)

The comments to this entry are closed.