Hello.
Here's where you come to read interesting
stuff. We'll be updating it as often as we
remember. It's your portal into the soul of
Marque, the place to find out what we think,
what we've written, what others write about
us and anything else we find fascinating or
faintly intriguing.
Suggestions of other ways we can bring this
page to the top of your bookmark list will
be received with respect and enthusiasm.
We might even take notice.
Stay, browse, relax - you're still on a law
firm website so it must be work.
Categories.
Bold opinions (17)
Legal writings we wrote (70)
Other random stuff (13)
Photo Gallery (12)
Things the media said about us (68)
Search the Soapbox.
Posts about Bold opinions:
The New Lawyer 9.2.10 "Who's sorry now? The GFC that wasn't"
01:06 Tuesday 9th February 2010
The New Lawyer 2.2.10 "Fall of 'ancien regime'?"
01:07 Tuesday 2nd February 2010
The New Lawyer 19.1.10 "Women have left the building"
01:07 Tuesday 19th January 2010
The New Lawyer 11.12.09 "Kirby talks religion at law firm event"
01:57 Friday 11th December 2009
More on email disclaimers
05:45 Sunday 11th October 2009
This one is a cracker - it belongs to a sole practitioner, who himself describes it as a "c***", and was drafted for him by a major Sydney firm. Here's what it says:
NOTICE - This message is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action based upon it. If you received this message in error please notify [the lawyer] immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of [the lawyer]. Unencrypted electronic mail is not secure and may not be authentic. If you have any doubts as to the contents please telephone to confirm. This electronic transmission including any attachments is intended only for those to whom it is addressed. It may contain copyright material or information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure by law. Any claim to privilege is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken transmission of this information. If you are not the intended recipient you must not distribute or copy this transmission and should please notify the sender. Your costs for doing this will be reimbursed by the sender. I do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data,corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. This email and any attachments may be confidential and legally privileged.
It's a work of art. The last sentence repeats the first sentence, presumably in case you've forgotten the first sentence by the time you get to the last sentence. In fact, there are four separate references to privilege, invoking the legal maxim that each time you mention privilege it makes everything just that little bit more privileged.
It denies pretty much everything apart from the email's bare existence. My favourite part is the statement that "any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of [the lawyer]." Given that we're talking about an email here, which can only come from the person who sent it, who can only be the lawyer in question, it's pretty likely that the views he's expressing will be his views, whether or not he says they're his views. Read it again, yes it is complete nonsense.
Meanwhile, we're warned that "Unencrypted electronic mail is not secure..." Who'd have thought?
All in all, a masterful example of the use of the passive voice and impenetrable verbiage to convey a point that didn't need to made at all.
« ‹ 1 2 3 4 › »