Sea Sponges

From Law.com comes a humorous look at why one shouldn't rely on find-and-replace when when writing briefs and motions. 

Comments

[Mahan Atma]

I once caught a published federal appellate court opinion with the phrase "tortuous interference" because Word Perfect (the judiciary's choice of word processor) automatically "fixes" the phrase "tortious interference."

I promptly alerted How Appealing, who had some fun with it, but then I kind of felt bad for the clerk who probably ended up getting blamed.

I bet if you run that phrase through Westlaw you'd find quite a few occurrences of it.

[Hans Bader]

There is more than one court decision, and many legal briefs, that substitute "tortuous" for "tortious" because of the limited vocabulary of standard spell-check programs.