Should Lawyers Use Grammarly?
Maybe Grammarly and every similar piece of software is just doomed to be a square peg in a round hole for lawyers, unable to learn and apply the kind of nuance that lawyers use on a daily basis, says Aron Solomon, J.D., the Chief Legal Analyst for Today's Esquire..
June 14, 2022 at 04:37 PM
6 minute read
I write a lot and like many other writers, the more sets of eyes you can have on your work the better. As long as those eyes are fast and you can meet all your deadlines, an extra edit is great. This is where electronic editing comes in very handy. We've all used it — whether it's spelling and grammar checks in Google docs, Word, or whatever you like to use.
Lawyers are presented with unique writing challenges. Aside from having the same urgent time pressures, a lot of legal writing is different in that it can be technical and you might have either a broad or a very narrow audience. So as someone who writes for both a general and a legal audience, I decided to test one of the most popular editing tools out there — Grammarly.
Grammarly has certain features that come for free, but having used only the free features for a couple of hours I can assure you that they won't cut it for a lawyer. You're going to want to invest in the paid version, which costs around $140 per year on an annual subscription. I'm happy to share that on that first day I was about to upgrade to the annual premium but got sidetracked and didn't. The next day when I went to sign up, there was a special offer for me for half off the annual fee. I grabbed it and was off to the races.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNew Revenue Streams: Transform unprofitable practices into thriving businesses
4 minute readTrust me I'm a legal AI: Can the legal profession close the 'trust gap' with Gen AI?
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Justices Wade Into South Carolina's Medicaid Fight With Planned Parenthood
- 2Fisher & Phillips Elects 25 New Partners In 15 Cities
- 3New York State Bar Outlines 2025 Legislative Priorities, Aiming for Fairness, Equity
- 4Family of 'Cop City' Activist Killed by Ga. Troopers Files Federal Lawsuit
- 5Houston Appeals Court Split Over Race Discrimination Suit Involving COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250