advice you can use — short and to the point — every Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday

technology  research  practice

All Our Research Tips

Not of books, but of dignitaries.

Judges

Stephen Waddams observes in Introduction to the Study of Law (my edition is 1992) that it is not proper to refer to a judge as Your Honour (or My Lord/Lady, where that is still used) outside the courtroom. He advocates just plain Mr Wagner or Ms Karakatsanis, or failing that the old-fashioned Judge (without the person’s surname) when you encounter one in a social setting. Most Canadian lawyers will probably say Justice So-and-so at a cocktail party, if they are not on first-name terms, and this also has the sanction of historical usage.

As pointed out previously, it’s Madam [emphasis on the first syllable] Justice not Madame Justice. In England, it’s Mrs (or less commonly Ms, occasionally Miss) Justice for female High Court judges. (Canada did a better job of capturing the dignity of the bench with Madam…) In the Court of Appeal for England and Wales, it is Lord or Lady Justice Who’s-it; in the UK Supreme Court, Lord or Baroness [or Lady, depending on preference] What’s-it.

Retired judges in Canada and England are often still referred to by their former judicial titles, as a courtesy, but it is not wrong to call the former Justice Binnie just plain Mr Binnie now that he is back in private practice. Beverley McLachlin, though retired from the Supreme Court of Canada, is still Justice McLachlin (although not Chief Justice) because she now sits on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal. And an envelope addressed to her would not have Ms Beverley McLachlin on it; she is The Rt Hon Beverley McLachlin – and in writing Mr Binnie gets The Hon Ian Binnie.

Government officials

Ministers of the Crown are now referred to as Minister Freeland or Minister Elliott— and, mutatis mutandis, so are mayors, police chiefs, dog-catchers, what have you. This is an unfortunate American habit. In the good old days in our loved Dominion, the Minister of Whatever was simply called Minister to her or his face and referred to as Mr, Ms etc., as the case might be. Somewhere along the way (and I think it was in the 1980s), we began imitating the US convention of calling officials in the executive branch Secretary Baker and Assistant Under-Secretary Butcher.

Another weird thing (among many) that Americans do is to keep calling former office-holders by the title they used to hold. In Canada and the UK, a former prime minister goes back to private life and relinquishes all the trappings of office, including the title (although, in the UK, he or she might get a peerage or knighthood, like Baroness Thatcher or Sir John Major). It’s Ms Kim Campbell and Mr David Cameron (although both are, more formally, The Rt Hon). Whereas south of the 49th parallel, President Carter, President Bush (times two), President Clinton and President Obama are still kicking around. As well as that orange person.

And while we’re on the subject, Amurricans still say Mr President, Ms Secretary, etc. We dropped the M-preamble long ago: it’s just How do you do, Prime Minister? when you meet our head of government, not Mr or Ms Prime Minister.

Royalty

The person represented on the coinage isn’t Queen Elizabeth: that was her mother, Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. It is simply The Queen or Her Majesty on your quarter.

Prince Charles is what we call the heir to the Canadian throne colloquially, but he is properly The Prince of Wales (in Scotland, though, he is The Duke of Rothesay and Lord of the Isles). His first wife was never (correctly) Princess Diana; she started her married life as The Princess of Wales and, after her divorce, became Diana, Princess of Wales. Wife number two is not Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, which would imply she is a widow or a divorcée. Just The Duchess of Cornwall; same deal with her step-daughters-in-law.

If their husbands had not been created royal dukes, Kate and Meghan would be respectively Princess William of Wales and Princess Harry of Wales. If that sounds odd, think of the old-fashioned way of addressing a married lady: Mrs John Smith (and of Princess Michael of Kent, whose first name is Marie-Christine). In any event, never Princess (or Duchess) Kate or Princess (or Duchess) Meghan, even though they are both princesses (and duchesses) by virtue of marriage.

Note, by the way, those official upper-case Ts in the titles of senior royals. And you should stick HRH before the title of a prince or princess, HM for the Boss.

Neil Guthrie (@guthrieneil)

 

My apologies to readers: this search tip is very BC-specific!

Quickscribe has recently added a useful new feature that allows you to set up an alert to notify you when a specific word or phrase is used in a bill, an order, or Hansard in British Columbia. For example, you could set up an alert to see any Orders that refer to the University Act or an alert to see any references in Hansard to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

To set up an alert, you will need to have access to Quickscribe and have set up a Personal Login. Once you’re logged in, go to My Alerts, then Keyword Alerts, and follow the instructions.

Susannah Tredwell

 

Canadiana Online’s unparalleled online collection of historical materials is now free to access. The collection, available at no charge at Canadiana.ca, contains more than 60 million digitized pages of books, periodicals, and government publications from early Canadian history. 

Why should lawyers and legal researchers take note of this thrilling development? Canadiana Online features an outstanding collection of historical statutes, bills, legal journals, and law reports. Some examples include:   

Legal researchers should take advantage of the wealth of legal resources available freely online here.  Canadian Online offers a simple search interface with search tips. Search results can be narrowed by multiple search filters and subject headings.       

Sources Cited

Ross, R. (2018, November 15). Over 60 Million Pages of Digitized Canadian Documentary Heritage Soon To Be Available At No Charge. Retrieved from: https://www.crkn-rcdr.ca/en/over-60-million-pages-digitized-canadian-documentary-heritage-soon-be-available-no-charge  

[This tip by Alan Kilpatrick originally appeared on the Law Society of Saskatchewan Library’s Legal Sourcery Blog.]

 

Grumpy Baby-boomers will oft have cause to make exclamations like this (but they may phrase it in less polite language). Or they may have no cause at all, but exclaim anyway.

One thing that is sure to raise the ire of older professionals is casual language in e-mails.

On this point, the Boomers are not wrong: and certainly the very casual style of the text message has no place in professional correspondence, even when it’s digital. Srsly.

That said, at least two of the abbreviations beloved of texting millennials have an older provenance than you might imagine.

IDK, short for ‘I don’t know’, turns out to be US military slang from the First World War. The News Courier of Athens, Alabama reported on 17 August 1918 that IDK was ‘the latest American soldier slang … which stands for “I don’t know” in reply to fool questions asked by recruits and men who have just been landed.’ Or perhaps by partners in law firms.

OMG (‘Oh, my God/gosh!’) is of roughly the same vintage, having been used by Admiral Lord Fisher in a letter to Winston Churchill (then Minister of Munitions) on 9 September 1917. While the admiral explained that it stood for ‘Oh! My God!’, he was using it as a short form for a fanciful new order of knighthood, jokingly modelled on the existing Order of St Michael and St George (the grades of which are abbreviated CMG, KCMG and GCMG). So, not quite how the kids are using it now.

Even if IDK and OMG pre-date the Boomers by a long way, you still shouldn’t use them (or WTF, LMAO, LOL and the like) in your business e-mail.

Neil Guthrie (@guthrieneil)

 

Tweets, like text messages, are often composed on the fly (as we know from painful experience emanating from the country to the south).

This, plus their brevity and informality, may sometimes excuse lapses in grammar, spelling and punctuation.

One apostrophe error in an isolated tweet could just be a typo, but when a managing partner of a Toronto firm (which shall remain nameless) tweets these within the space of 24 hours, there is clearly a larger issue:

·         Lets roll even higher in 2020

·         Hat’s off to the workers

·         Hows this one …

Remedial training is available, managing partner! Or buy a copy of my book 😉

Neil Guthrie (@guthrieneil)

 

A holiday treat for those of us who carry out British Columbia legal research: BC Laws has just added historical BC annual statutes dating back to 1858. You can find them at http://bclaws.ca/civix/content/hstats/hstats/?xsl=/templates/browse.xsl. Up until now, BC’s annual statutes were not available freely online in any format.

Susannah Tredwell

 

You may have seen the news that John Richards, the founder of the Apostrophe Protection Society, has decided to call it quits after 18 years of fighting for the correct use of the troublesome punctuation mark.

Part of the reason is that Richards, a retired journalist, is 96 and needs to scale back his activities.

But he also feels that ‘ignorance and laziness have won’, his efforts over the years having proved so much tilting at windmills.

He may have a point: my phone’s autocorrect feature assumes that its must always be it’s, and I routinely encounter things like keeping up with the Jones’ and Closed Monday’s.

With John Richards’s retirement, the apostrophe lacks protection.

Does it matter? It can.

There was heated debate in Ghana earlier this year over the name of a new holiday celebrating the country’s path to independence. Was it to be Founder’s Day or Founders’ Day?

The first would have focused attention on Ghana’s first post-colonial leader, Kwame Nkrumah; the second, on the broader movement that brought about independence.

One small mark has the power, if used correctly, to honour an entire generation.

Neil Guthrie (@guthrieneil)

 

The old, Darwinian rule for associates was ‘up or out’, meaning that if you weren’t going to be asked to join the partnership, you’d be more or less politely shown the door.

Some firms still do it that way, but not all. Terminology varies, but the most common term in my neck of the woods for someone who’ll never have a corner office is Senior Associate.

Counsel is also used for associates not on the partner track, but also for lawyers past retirement age but still profitable or prestigious enough to keep on board. Counsel is also used for senior lateral hires who are not immediately made partners, although that often follows after a sort of probationary period.

In the US, there is a wider variety of nomenclature. The grey-haired types are described as being Of Counsel, which has been turned into an unfortunate bastard noun (‘We have six distinguished Of Counsels at our firm’). For associates who aren’t on the partner track, these titles are apparently seen on US business cards:

  • Career Associate
  • Permanent Associate
  • Staff Attorney
  • Practice Group Attorney
  • Department Attorney
  • Team Attorney
  • Innovative Staffing Attorney
  • Agile Counsel

The last two sound bizarre: don’t you want all your lawyers to be agile, at least mentally? and is every other job assignment unimaginative? Career Associate and Permanent Associate are descriptive but a bit tragic (career-limited, stuck in a rut) – and Permanent may imply a level of job security which no associate should expect. Staff Attorney suggests in-house counsel to me, but maybe that’s the idea. The others have a Knowledge Management feel to them, but that may accurately reflect the work this type of lawyer ends up doing. In the UK, this would be a Professional Support Lawyer or PSL, in Canada a KM Lawyer (if not a Senior Associate). In light of that KM-ish category, Agile Counsel may refer to Agile, the project-management process, rather than agile (the normal adjective). That makes a bit more sense, but as a job description it would baffle all but initiates…

Neil Guthrie (@guthrieneil)

 

This cautionary note was included (in red, boldface type!) in one of the e-mail notices that go round at my firm, notifying lawyers of prospective clients and asking if there would be any conflicts in acting for them.

Some matters may be more sensitive or interesting or salacious or newsworthy than others, but as a matter of law and legal ethics they can’t be more (or less) confidential.

As lawyers we owe the same duty of confidentiality to each client, and the standard is as high as it gets.

As a matter of English grammar, the very confidential warning is as bad as it gets. It’s like saying something is very unique. It’s unique (or confidential) or it isn’t. These adjectives are absolutes.

Or, as a partner once said to me of a research task, ‘This is somewhat urgent’. I was about to reply, ‘Oh, so it isn’t urgent’, but, anticipating a sense-of-humour failure, kept quiet and just got on with the job.

Neil Guthrie (@guthrieneil)

 

Thanks to Jason Wong of McCarthy Tétrault LLP for the inspiration for this tip.

The Privy Council Office has created an online database that allows users to search for federal Orders in Council (OICs) made between 1990 and the present. 

If you cannot retrieve your OIC from the database, you can request it by emailing the Privy Council Office directly at oic-ddc@pco-bcp.gc.ca. If the OIC is available, it will be emailed directly to you (usually within one working day); if not available, you will have to check with Library and Archives Canada (LAC). 

LAC has digitized microfilm copies of orders in council from 1867 to 1916. You can search the Orders-in-Council database by going to https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/politics-government/orders-council/Pages/orders-in-council.aspx.

If your Order in Council is available neither from the Privy Council Office nor through the database you will have to contact LAC directly to get a copy.

Susannah Tredwell