1. You should continue to use bold in all these cases. 2. I disagree with the idea that quotation marks and bold are exaggerated when a term is defined. Quotation marks convey the abbreviation, while printing in bold allows readers to quickly locate the point of definition. No bold would make a reader search for quotation marks in a shallow sea of text. Fat is like . a breaking wave in the reader`s eye; the definite term that shouts: «Here! Here I am! » 3. References to exhibitions and schedules: How about highlighting only the first instance of the reference? I would say that attachments are sufficiently different from internal references to justify being treated as a defined term. This would still make it possible to monitor the evolution of the annexes. For a wheelbase font, use italics for soft accent or bold for stronger accent. Rule #2: Use as little as possible in bold and italics.
They are tools to emphasize. But if everything is emphasized, then nothing is emphasized. Because bold and italic styles contrast with ordinary Latin text, they are a little harder to read. They are suitable for short pieces of text, but not for long sections. We provide practical legal advice based on the unique facts and circumstances that each client faces. We do not waste time discussing theoretical legal issues in silos. Bold legal lawyers manage the legal process to close deals quickly and efficiently. The underlining is not as noticeable as the bold and since no one uses typewriters anymore, I do not see the need for an underline. As far as I remember typography, bold is the substitute for underlining in the computer age. Middle English, from Old English beald; Similar to the old bald fat of High German For a fixed minimum premium, you are now protecting yourself from the costs of an expensive legal defense. One of the most important skills for a lawyer is legal drafting. Nevertheless, it goes beyond «a captivating opening, a clear narrative line and continuous polishing».
[1] Whether you`re a litigator or a transactional lawyer, a recent Indiana Court of Appeals case highlights the importance of incorporating proofreading into your writing process, with an emphasis on formatting and consistency. In Erie Indemnity Company v. Brian L.` estate. Harris,[2] the Indiana Court of Appeals analyzed an employer`s commercial auto insurance policy to determine whether an employee`s death fell within the policy`s coverage for uninsured motorists. The employee had just cut his grass on a lawnmower when a drunk driver beat and killed him. The Court`s examination of the merits revealed that the employee had not paid premiums and that he was listed in the employer`s policy as a designated insured. Although he is not a designated or additional insured, he was on the list of scheduled drivers under the policy and had been for more than seventeen (17) years. The policy included coverage for uninsured motorists («confirmation UM»), which included coverage limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident, and the employee`s estate («estate») filed a claim under the UM confirmation.
The insurance company dismissed the claim for two reasons: (1) the employee did not meet the insured`s definition of «you»; and (2) the employee was not operating or occupying a police-insured vehicle at the time of the accident. The estate then brought an action for a declaration of coverage under the conditions of the EUTM opinion. At the summary judgment stage, the Court of First Instance «concluded that the estate had the right to make reparation for [the employee`s] accident in accordance with the EUTM`s confirmation of the directive», which was then appealed. [3] BOLD gives you peace of mind that if there is a denial of coverage by another policy, you still have an unlimited legal defense. Nevertheless, some lawyers – let`s call them too concrete – simply can`t do enough bold and italics. If they feel strong for a point, they will not hesitate to write the whole paragraph in bold. Don`t be one of those people. This habit exhausts the retina and patience of your readers. It also doesn`t give you a place to go if you need to focus on a word. This is not a problem for those who are too concrete and resort to underlining bold text or using a lot of bold italics.
These are two terrible ideas. However, editors sometimes do not capitalize words or phrases previously defined in a bulk or bold document. This is done to use the word or phrase in two different ways. Take «obligations» and «obligations.» «Obligations» are defined in the treaty and have a specific meaning, while «obligations» are not defined in the treaty and have a general meaning. In this case, the use of «other persons we protect» instead of «others we protect» means that the author did not intend that «other persons we protect» would have the specific meaning given to such an expression in the policy. If the author intended to use the specific meaning in this case, he should have used bold text for the entire sentence. In this case, if the policy author had reread the document with an emphasis on uniformity, he would likely have seen the inconsistent formatting that led to ambiguity. Consistent formatting and careful proofreading help avoid editorial ambiguity and future responsibilities.
The defendant argued that not bolding «your premises» was a mistake. This argument was rejected by the General Court on the ground that there was insufficient evidence of unscrupulous conduct on the part of the applicant which would justify a fundamental amendment to the agreement for a unilateral error and that the use of natural importance did not render the agreement non-commercial or unfair [28]-[29]. The Court held that (1) «the phrase `other persons whom we protect` is `subject to more than one interpretation` in the case of reasonable persons». would be different in its meaning», «[5] and (2) «other than we protect» was ambiguous and interpreted ambiguity against the insurer. [6] In particular, if a policy is found to be ambiguous, the courts will «interpret the policy strictly against the insurer.» [7] This ambiguity, caused by the absence of bold throughout the sentence and its exclusion from the policy definitions, led the court to uphold the trial court`s decision to allow the estate to receive damages for uninsured motorists. It also allowed the court to invoke the «long-standing public policy of covering people protected by an insurance policy.» [8] Some fonts have heavier styles than bold, such as black or ultra. These weights are usually intended for large sizes (such as titles) and do not work well with body sizes. I admit that I use both the underscore *and* the bold to highlight these three cases. I`m going into exaggeration! (Most of the voters who read the drafts during my negotiations are on the side of House business and are unfamiliar/overwhelmed/frightened by legal German. My exaggerated approach seems to provide focus points for these readers and helps us navigate the document together during conversations.) However, I try to stay open to a downgrade of one level. On the one hand, one reader suggested to me that the use of quotation marks around a defined term when defined (see MSCD 6.14, 6.23) is a form of emphasis, and that adding bold would be exaggerated, I tend to lean towards Words into Type, which means that quotation marks or italics should be used for definitions. But it depends.
If the definition is online, I would use italics. If there is a list of definitions (a glossary), I would use bold. But here`s a related question: I`ve already used underlining to highlight section headers, any defined term when defined, and references to exhibitions and schedules. (See MSCD 12.9.) Should I use bold in all of these cases, or is there something I should no longer emphasize? In an insurance document that defines only terms in bold to have a specific or technical meaning, it will be difficult to determine that non-bold terms should not take on their natural and ordinary meaning.
