[muawiyah]

Jackson-Denno being, of course, arcane lawyer jargon referring to a specific case ~ when you are writing a regulation you cannot assume any special knowledge on the part of the target audience. If you have a very large target audience and you know lawyers have a tendency to fall into jargon, then you must not allow a lawyer to write the rule.

You bring in lawyers to REVIEW the rule to provide counsel as necessary. But you don't let them write any of the words.

I was usually unsuccessful in convincing CPAs of the fact that they were ONLY to review the accounting features and standards, NOT REWRITE THE RULES.

Accountants appear to be constitutionally incapable of writing anything anyone can understand. Lawyers try, but they are trained to obfuscate and confuse.

Oh the Huge Manitee!

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, if somebody's going to sit as judge on a criminal trial, he had better darned well know who Mr. Jackson and Mr. Denno are before he gets there, or the entire bar is going to think he's an idiot.

Every criminal lawyer whose client was stupid enough to talk to the cops asks for a Jackson-Denno hearing to try to argue that the statement wasn't knowing and voluntary. I have never practiced criminal law (thank goodness) -other than going to traffic court occasionally- but even I know that one, just from sitting through the arraignment calendar waiting for the summary judgments to be heard.