{"id":4897,"date":"2022-12-22T12:03:00","date_gmt":"2022-12-22T11:03:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/djp-a9vm.1wp.site\/?p=4897"},"modified":"2026-10-19T19:05:34","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T17:05:34","slug":"does-anyone-have-any-objections","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/does-anyone-have-any-objections\/","title":{"rendered":"Does anyone have any objections?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Relatively few lawyers start sentences in pleadings with \u201cbut\u201d. Some even say we should not. Why? Because \u201cthat is not how one writes\u201d. I do it quite often, however, so I thought it worth asking what really lies behind these objections and how much merit they have.<\/p>\n

I think there are two beliefs. First, that opening a sentence this way is incorrect. Second, that it is colloquial and therefore unsuitable for the very serious, formal document a pleading is and should be\u2014is it not?<\/p>\n

Can a sentence begin with \u201cbut\u201d?<\/h2>\n

Let us start with the linguistic question. Is beginning a sentence with Polish ale<\/em> (\u201cbut\u201d), or another conjunction such as a<\/em>, i<\/em> or bo<\/em>, an error? No. There is no linguistic or spelling rule prohibiting it. Rightly so. If the writer deliberately seeks an effect\u2014I will explain its use in pleadings below\u2014why should they not start with a conjunction? It is common practice among Polish speakers. If that does not convince you, here is the authority of the PWN language advice service<\/a>:<\/p>\n

28 December 2009<\/em><\/p>\n

[Question:] Can a sentence begin with \u201cbut\u201d? Can it also begin with \u201cand\u201d (for example, \u201cAnd besides, do not be angry with me\u201d)?<\/em><\/p>\n

[Answer:] You can begin with \u201cbut\u201d, \u201cand\u201d, \u201cso\u201d and many other words our correspondents ask about. At the beginning of a sentence, these words refer to earlier text, so using them meaningfully presupposes that such text exists. If you tell a newsagent, \u201cGood morning. But I would like matches\u201d, the function of \u201cbut\u201d is unclear. If the newsagent has handed you a newspaper instead of matches, however, \u201cBut I would like matches\u201d is entirely appropriate.<\/em><\/p>\n

Miros\u0142aw Ba\u0144ko, PWN<\/em><\/p>\n

Does \u201cbut\u201d belong in a pleading?<\/h2>\n

With that settled, let us turn to the second issue. Is initial \u201cbut\u201d too informal for a pleading? I will leave aside the broader debate about whether lawyers must\u2014and should\u2014write in a hyperformal bureaucratic style. My answer is no, no and no again, as discussed in earlier posts. Here, let us focus on the formality of initial \u201cbut\u201d itself. How can it be measured, and how can we convince someone it is not too low when style largely depends on personal preference?<\/p>\n

Through examples, I think. They show that recognised authors, including lawyers, have long used initial \u201cbut\u201d in serious publications:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Maurycy Allerhand, Podst\u0119p w procesie<\/em> (Deceit in Proceedings), Lw\u00f3w 1907, for example p. 170: \u201cIf the third party did not know of the pending dispute and consequently did not join the proceedings, a judgment effective against that party may result from collusion between the litigants. But<\/strong> even if the third party joins, they cannot always avert adverse consequences.\u201d<\/li>\n
  • Eugeniusz Wa\u015bkowski, Podr\u0119cznik procesu cywilnego: ustr\u00f3j s\u0105d\u00f3w cywilny, post\u0119powanie sporne<\/em> (Civil Procedure Textbook), Wilno 1932, for example p. 162: \u201cNaturally, a party\u2019s inactivity may cause harm or even loss of the case. But<\/strong> the fact that taking a procedural step would benefit a litigant by no means establishes a legal duty to take it.\u201d<\/li>\n
  • Roman Longchamps de Berier, Zobowi\u0105zania<\/em> (Obligations), Lw\u00f3w 1939, for example p. 84, spelling modernised: \u201cA mistake is subjectively material if causally connected with making the declaration, meaning that without it the party would not have made the declaration. But<\/strong> a \u2018subjectively material\u2019 mistake is not sufficient; it must also be objectively material, meaning a mistake such that neither the declaring party nor any other reasonable person would have made that declaration without being mistaken.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Are there more contemporary examples? Yes. The following used it repeatedly:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • Zygmunt Bauman, for example Ponowoczesne wzory osobowe<\/em>, \u201cStudia Socjologiczne\u201d 2011, no. 1 (200), pp. 436, 438, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 453, 456;<\/li>\n
    • Jerzy Bralczyk, for example Poza prawd\u0105 i fa\u0142szem<\/em>, \u201cTeksty: teoria literatury, krytyka, interpretacja\u201d 1981, no. 6 (60), pp. 123, 124, 125;<\/li>\n
    • Jan Miodek, for example Polszczyzna lat 1918\u20132018<\/em>, \u201cStudia Pigoniana\u201d, MMXIX, no. 2, pp. 43, 44, 46.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Among contemporary lawyers, Andrzej Szl\u0119zak is an example: see his article from this year, Krytycznie o polemice: kwalifikacja prawna klauzuli drag along<\/em>, PPH 2022, no. 7, p. 42.<\/p>\n

      If classics of legal scholarship, leading Polish linguists, famous sociologists such as Bauman and partners in major law firms such as Szl\u0119zak could write this way without finding it too informal, we ordinary mortals probably can too.<\/p>\n

      Why is it worth starting sentences with \u201cbut\u201d?<\/h2>\n

      Being allowed to do something does not mean it is worthwhile. Why should a pleading\u2019s author begin some sentences with \u201cbut\u201d? At least three reasons:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Initial \u201cbut\u201d makes prose more dynamic. Livelier writing is less boring, easier to read and understand.<\/li>\n
      2. It allows one long sentence to be split into two. Short sentences tire readers less, making the text easier to read and understand.<\/li>\n
      3. It shortens the text, replacing several words or at least longer words such as \u201cnevertheless\u201d or \u201chowever\u201d. Shorter text is easier to read and understand.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Initial \u201cbut\u201d is therefore one device that makes a pleading\u2019s language stronger: livelier, more concise and direct. That helps win cases because the court can absorb it more easily.<\/p>\n

        As always, an example helps. I doubt anyone will question which version would better catch the court\u2019s attention:<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. The appellant alleges a manifestly incorrect application of Article X. It must, however, be emphasised that<\/strong> the court applied it consistently with settled Supreme Court case law. The ground is therefore unfounded.<\/em><\/li>\n
        2. The appellant alleges a manifestly incorrect application of Article X. But<\/strong> the court applied it consistently with settled Supreme Court case law. The ground is therefore unfounded.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          Relatively few lawyers start sentences in pleadings with \u201cbut\u201d. Some even say we should not. Why? Because \u201cthat is not how one writes\u201d. I do it quite often, however, so I thought it worth asking what really lies behind these objections and how much merit they have.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":2016,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"294","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_seopress_news_disabled":"","_seopress_video_disabled":"","_seopress_video":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas_manual":[],"_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable_all":"","_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas":[],"iawp_total_views":0,"_djp_featured_image_mode":"full","footnotes":""},"categories":[{"term_id":294,"name":"Articles","slug":"articles-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":294,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":100,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":294,"category_count":100,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Articles","category_nicename":"articles-en","category_parent":0},{"term_id":292,"name":"Dispute Resolution","slug":"dispute-resolution-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":292,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":51,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":292,"category_count":51,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Dispute Resolution","category_nicename":"dispute-resolution-en","category_parent":0},{"term_id":291,"name":"General","slug":"general-en","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":291,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":153,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":291,"category_count":153,"category_description":"","cat_name":"General","category_nicename":"general-en","category_parent":0}],"tags":[],"djp_center":[],"coauthors":[238],"class_list":["post-4897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-en","category-dispute-resolution-en","category-general-en"],"acf":{"djp_promote_now":false,"djp_promotion_days":7},"images":{"thumbnail":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/closeup-business-woman-making-notes-document-scaled-1-150x150.jpg","medium":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/closeup-business-woman-making-notes-document-scaled-1-300x200.jpg","medium_large":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/closeup-business-woman-making-notes-document-scaled-1-768x513.jpg","large":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/closeup-business-woman-making-notes-document-scaled-1-1024x684.jpg","full":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/closeup-business-woman-making-notes-document-scaled-1-djp-web.webp"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4897","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4897"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4897\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5545,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4897\/revisions\/5545"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2016"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4897"},{"taxonomy":"djp_center","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/djp_center?post=4897"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/djp.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=4897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}