top of page
  • bcrowley918

ABOVE THE LAW has contacted me. AGAIN. Word leaked. They know.

I never understood Pennoyer. I joked about jurisdiction. I thought in rem was a band. They’ve figured me out. What do they want? To take away my quote? Do I need this? During a pandemic?


Wait. WHAT?? You want ANOTHER QUOTE? Um…I’ll check my quote schedule. Ah ha! I knew it! They were impressed I made a post-Pennoyer comeback.

Everyone loves a comeback!

So I’ll teach you a trick to make legalese, legalEASY. MAKE. IT. FUN.

Speaking of fun, it’s HARDLY my fault Pennoyer was not fun. That’s on him. Not everyone is fun.

DEFINTIONS #clearasabelitz style:

  • Promissory Esptoppel: Oops, STOP! I totally spaced and forgot to make a contract.

  • Adverse Possession: Not moving my *ss (as long as it’s an OCEAN).

  • Res ipsa Loquitur: Duh. I mean WHO throws flour out the window?

  • Prima Facie: Double duh.

  • The Unborn Widow: The ultimate trophy wife

  • The fertile octoganarian: Look at that uber-couger sporting some cute maternity jeans.

  • Due Process: The utility player of the constitution.

  • Long arm jurisdiction: Fancy foreign footwear

  • Character Evidence: Time to bring in the PR spin doctors.

Oh, yes my quote. Question presented: Do lawyers need to learn to code?

On the one hand, Shari E. Belitz CEO of Shari Belitz Communications, summarized it: “If you asked me in 1990 if lawyers needed to learn email, I would have said no. If you asked in 1995 if lawyers needed to know how to type rather than dictate a memo, I would have said no. If you asked me in 2019 if lawyers would need to learn how to use an online platform to mediate, I would have said no. So, do lawyers need to learn to code? Yes. Learning to code provides the added bonus of sharpening logic skills, so is not just a utilitarian function.”

For the full article published on Above the Law, click here.

36 views0 comments


bottom of page