CONTACT ME


  • Kimberly A. Kralowec
    The Kralowec Law Group
    44 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 1210
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801
    Web: www.kraloweclaw.com
    Email: uclpractitioner@gmail.com

June 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

« More on Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Co.: the attorneys' fees holding | Main | Class certification order by Judge Velasquez: In re Complete® Cases »

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Comments

Andrew Sussman

The more likely and more innocuous explanation for the court's use of the male third person singular pronoun = each of the three named attorneys for the Plaintiff/Appellants on the appeal had first names ordinarily associated with men.

Kimberly A. Kralowec

The sentence in which the generic "he" was used was a general statement of the issues raised in the case that was supposed to applicable to everyone reading it. It was not limited to the specific attorneys involved in the case (who I recognize appear to be males). It's time to stop using the generic "he" for such broad statements. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting any nefarious intent on the court's behalf.

rb

If Andrew is correct, I assume this decision is limited to the facts of, and persons involved in, this case.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2015 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2015
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.


  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner




  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad