Opens in a new tab

Doktór Jerszyński Pietras
Adwokaci i Radcowie Prawni
Spółka Komandytowa

Articles, Dispute Resolution, General

A fish rots from the head — an update

In my original article “A fish rots from the head, and a pleading from its heading”, published last year, I argued against opening pleadings like this:

A fish rots from the head — an update
Translated from Polish.Read the Polish original

In my original article “A fish rots from the head, and a pleading from its heading”, published last year, I argued against opening pleadings like this:

Acting on behalf of claimant X, pursuant to the power of attorney granted to me to represent its interests in these proceedings, a certified true copy of which, together with proof of payment of stamp duty, is attached to this statement of claim, I request…

Instead, write:

As X’s lawyer, I request…

Why? Because giving the court all that information is simply unnecessary. And including unnecessary things in a pleading is, well… unnecessary. But that is not all. Such an opening may alienate the court from the outset. It has every reason to suspect that everything else it is about to read will be just as tangled. Not an inviting prospect!

Some time has passed, and I have concluded that the “one correct” opening should be shorter still. Simply write:

X requests…

Why omit the information that we act as counsel? Because we already supplied it when identifying the party: “Claimant: X; Counsel: attorney Y”. There is no point repeating ourselves.

And why use the third person rather than simply “I request…”, as comments on the original article suggested? Because it is more logical and consistent with the Code of Civil Procedure. As lawyers, we file pleadings on the parties’ behalf. Formally, these are their documents and procedural acts. Common sense points the same way: the dispute concerns our client, not us. The value a professional lawyer brings lies not only in knowledge but in emotional detachment. That enables an outside view and helps with better decisions on arguments, litigation tactics and so on.

Moreover, writing only “I request…” could briefly confuse the reader. Who is requesting? The party personally? Counsel? It becomes clear after a moment, perhaps a few seconds. But if we can spare the judge even that much unnecessary mental effort, we should—in our own interests. Let the judge spend those extra seconds analysing our substantive arguments.

Let us reserve “I request…” for occasions when we appear in court on our own behalf—and may we need it as rarely as possible.

Share

Publications and commentary

From the same perspective.

All publications

NEWSLETTER DJP

Law from our perspective.

Receive analysis and new publications from our experts. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Let’s talk about your matter.

Understanding your perspective is a good place to start.

Get in touch

Search the DJP website

A topic, name or question

Publications · experts · practice areas · topicsFull search

Enter at least 2 characters to see suggestions.