法律英语应考—注意事项（1）

法务写作要求根据所给信息，用英文撰写律师函、案件分析报告、案件辩论书等。应当注意：

     1. 格式准确。如：写律师请求函（Demand Letter），应注意“抬头”写明律所的名称、地址，对方的姓名和地址，以及日期这些基本信息。正文开头要称呼对方。正文中点明请求事项；说明本律所当事人所享有的正当权益；说明经调查本律所当事人正当权益被侵犯的事实、法律依据；说明本律所当事人的权利主张和要求，并说明本律所保留诉诸法律的权利。结尾：Yours Sincerely后，说明本律所经办人的姓名、当事人的姓名。
 

又如，写案件辩论书（Brief），要在抬头写明原告和被告姓名，然后写明案情简介(Introduction)、事实陈述 (Statement of Facts)、争议 (Argument)、结论(Conclusions)，最后写明律师姓名、单位、地址。
 

再如，写案件法律分析报告(Law Office Memo)，抬头要写报告明呈递对象，报告起草人，日期，主题；然后，写明Facts, Issues, Brief Answers, Relevant Rules, Discussion, Conclusion。
   

在书写格式方面，建议多看法律英语写作教材中的范文，了解格式框架，行文方式。

     2. 拼写、语法正确。注意单词拼写，大小写，标点，以及时态、动宾搭配，介词搭配等。

     3. 术语规范。要用法律英语中的专有词汇。具体法律术语的使用在下面的法律翻译讲解中会有详细说明。
 

4. 主旨明确，用词简洁，论证有力。尤其要注意用词简练，论据充分。
   

5. 过渡自然，逻辑性强。注意使用衔接词。
 

6. 注意避免常见错误：
 

a.格式不规范，有些地方论述不到位。如：律师请求函 (Demand Letter) 中，抬头部分应该有律所的名称、地址，对方姓名、地址，以及日期，但却漏写；正文中，说明侵权事实后，没有说明法律依据和引用的条款。 在案件辩论书 (Brief) 中，对Argument论述不够，对Conclusions论述也不够明确；结尾也没有写明经办律师的姓名、单位、地址。
    

 b. 语法错误，单词拼错，缺少衔接词，用词不专业、不规范。
   

 总体上看，法律英语写作，第一步是明确写作格式和要点；第二步是用法律英语的专业术语和表述结构把各项要点呈现出来。这就要学习、积累专业术语和特定句式结构。搞好法律翻译（尤其是中译英），法律英语写作也会同时得到促进。
 

Demand Letter
 

抬头：写明律所的名称、地址；对方的姓名和地址；日期

 

Arssen, Barratree & Champertey
 

Attorneys at Law, 
 

…. Lane
 

Missesassafrass, MN xxxxx

 

Mr. Johannes Jammerschmidt
 

Xxx Company Ltd.
 

Xxx, St. Paul, MN xxxxx

 

June, xx, 2012

 

开头：称呼对方
 

Dear Mr. Jammerschmidt, 

 

正文：

1. 点明请求事项；
 

2. 说明本律所当事人所享有的正当权益；
 

3. 说明经调查本律所当事人正当权益被侵犯的事实、法律依据；
 

4. 说明本律所当事人的权利主张和要求，并说明本律所保留诉诸法律的权利。
      

This letter is to inform you that your building and operating stores in the city of St. Paul constitutes an infringement of the trade dress (产品或服务的包装设计) rights of our client, Mr. Lancelot Lovequist. 
      Our client has, in accordance with relevant laws, duly registered his trade dress, a symbol representing his commercial activities. Therefore, he holds an exclusive property right to this trade dress. 
     After careful research, we have concluded that the trade dress used in your stores is confusingly similar to that of our client, and that your current business activities have constituted an infringement of Mr. Lovequist’s trade dress rights under Section 43 (a) of the Lanham Act, 15 US. C. 125 (a). 
     Accordingly, we herewith formally demand that you immediately cease the infringement. Otherwise, we reserve the right to resort to appropriate legal action if this infringement is not rectified within the period of one week as of the date hereof. 

 

结尾：

Yours Sincerely后，说明本律所经办人的姓名、当事人的姓名
   

Yours Sincerely, 
 

Dao’ud bin-Shahidi
 

CC: Lancelot Lovequist

 

Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
 

原告和被告姓名
 

Moira Murgatroyd, plaintiff
 

v.
 

Dik Drastick, defendant

 

案情简介
 

Introduction:
   

The plaintiff, Moria Murgatroyd, filed a lawsuit against defendant, Dr. Dik Drastik alleging negligence in the death of her son. The facts relevant hereto came out during discovery and are not in dispute, and thus summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 

事实陈述
 

Statement of Facts:
   

Plaintiff’s decedent (死者), her 14-year-old son Tater Murgatroyd, was struck by a truck while riding his bicycle on May 6, 2009. Tater’s sole compliant after the accident was a headache, and so Plaintiff took him to the hospital, where Plaintiff consulted defendant Dr. Dik Drastik, who ordered X-rays after Plaintiff described the accident. Defendant failed either to examine the back of the boy’s head or resort to other standard diagnostic procedures. After Tater was sent home, he died early the next morning. 

 

争议
 

Argument:
  

Since there is no dispute in the facts of Defendant’s negligence, this cause comes before this honorable Court on stipulated facts, and is thus ripe for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. The gravamen (控诉要点) of Defendant’s defense in this case is that Defendant’s negligence did not proximately cause Andrew’s death. 
 

Moulton V. Ginocchio (1966) held that a doctor is liable when his negligence prevents a substantial possibility of survival for the decedent. While in this case, Defendant used X-rays to indicate a skull fracture and sent Plaintiff’s decedent home. His failure to examine the back of the boy’s head did not constitute a delay which ruled out the possibility of Plaintiff’s decedent’s survival, and thus Defendant’s failure to act may not be deemed as having proximately caused the death of Plaintiff’s decedent. 
 

Furthermore, the case of Mallard v. Harkin (1969) introduced changes in traditional standards of proximate cause (近因，最接近伤害结果的事因), based on considerations of public policy. Similarly in the instant case, the imputation (归因) of cause to Defendant would result in an unjust situation in which Defendant would be held accountable for harm that he did not cause and could not prevent. Therefore, it is unreasonable to impute Defendant’s negligent acts or omissions as the proximate cause of Andrew’s death. 

 

结论
 

Conclusions:
 

 For the foregoing reasons, we assert that defendant’s negligence did not proximately cause the death of Plaintiff’s decedent. Accordingly, we move this honorable Court for summary judgment in favor of Defendant.

 

律师姓名、单位、地址
 

Respectfully submitted, 
 

Merry-Lou Liu
 

Asolde, Battarri & Cranke  
 

Indianapolis, Indiana