Train accidents have become very common nowadays. They are more often in the news and still counting. They usually cause untimely death which brings trauma to the victim’s friends and relatives. And surviving dependents or survivors of train accidents always feel the need for justice to be served to them. Also, they also want to ask for proper compensation for the physical, financial and emotional harm that they’ve endured from the incident.
Whenever you’re confused or overwhelmed of what you have to do prior to a train accident, never think twice to look for an experienced train accident lawyer who can help you understand your legal rights and options. This legal specialist knows everything about train accidents inside and out so there’s a big chance that you’ll succeed in your case. He will certainly work to the best of his ability and through his dedication in applying the unique facts of your case to the legal process.
When you’ve been through this traumatic experience, you have to focus your attention in getting your life back to its normal state. And I think this can be achieved through the aid of a competent legal counsel. You can expect him to guide you all throughout the entire legal process. Aside from your truthful testimonies, you also have to prepare all the necessary documents to support your claim. Therefore, both of you work together in identifying the best action that must be taken to achieve a winning case.
For you to be able to work with a top professional in train accident laws is a privilege. Through him, you can expect for the best possible things to happen to your lawsuit. And after having been into this stressful situation, you only deserve a top representation in your case. Thus, you have to be confident that you’re well-supported during this time because you have a skilled and knowledgeable lawyer on your side.
Indeed, if you’ve been in a major train accident and you’re in need of legal representation, always make sure that your lawyer has vast experience and true dedication to his job. Both of these elements are important for a legal specialist to possess. After all, he’ll be the one to put up a strong, dexterous effort towards your success. But both of you have your own roles towards the achievement of this goal.
About the Author
This composition was provided by a very reliable Ask Accident Lawyers Company. This article was composed to serve the interests of Los Angeles Accident Lawyers, Attorneys and Law Firms who are looking for reviews, suggestions, tips and more in the industry.
Plain language has become a distinguishing feature for service providers. It’s also central to triple bottom line reporting and to corporate transparency and accountability.
The documents you write form the voice of your brand. When someone reads your documents, their subconscious conducts a reality check on the claims your organisation makes about itselfclaims about being, say, “innovative” and “client-focused”.
Do your organisation’s documents enhance its brand?
Most accountants strive to make their oral communications successful. But too often they write in a style that suggests they are concerned to make their writing “sound like an accountant”.
The related problem of a document “sounding like a lawyer” (ugh!) can be worse in the documents that accountants arrange for clients through law firms. Those documents can be impenetrable.
Poor documents increase costs and delay. They alienate and frustrate readers. They sour relationships rather than sweeten them.
Yet the document a client reads - and therefore the clarity of the document - matters to readers. If the document didn’t matter, they wouldn’t read it.
But increasingly, plain language matters for reasons that go beyond the marketing benefits related to the voice of your brand (as an individual) and the voice of your organisation’s brand.
Plain language also matters because of the thinking behind triple bottom line reporting. That sort of reporting requires organizations to be up front, to be transparent, and to be model corporate citizens in every regard. In an age in which the themes of reform and regulation are often full and frank disclosure, clarity becomes a key.
This pressure to be clear applies to clients in their financial reports and it also applies to accountants advising clients how to manage their businesses and how to organise their lives.
Clarity is achieved by focusing on your audience and your purpose. So, let’s deal with purpose first.
You almost certainly know how to write. But do you remember why you write?
Consider the range of possible purposes for writing. Those purposes include: advising, persuading, informing, educating, extracting information, marketing, etc.
Yet even though we have many purposes for writing, most of us use the one style most of the time. People seem to develop a work-voice. They want to sound professional. So they decide to write in a way that is “formal” and “traditional”. But “formal” plus “traditional” doesn’t equal “professional”. It equals pompous and out of date.
How many (if any) of the purposes for which you write are best served by using a formal, traditional, “work-voice” style?
Rather than using our work-voice every time we write, we need to let the purpose of that writing influence or even dictate the style in which we write. How could one style suit all the possible purposes?
Let’s move from purpose to audience. What style do readers prefer?
When we think like a reader, we know the style of document we want. But frequently, as writers, we don’t write in a style we’d like to read. Ask yourself this: What’s the best sort of business writing you read that gets sent to you at home? Then ask, would you…could you…do you, write like that at work? (With thanks to Dr Seuss for the rhythm!)
… if you would, could, or do write like that, then that is terrific. Go for it.
… but if you like a clearer style when you are a reader but you feel that you can’t use that style when you’re a writer at work (perhaps because it would be, say, “unprofessional”), then maybe your work voice is too in control of your writing.
… and if you still have a concern, then think about your readers.
Which style would your readers prefer you to write in? Perhaps you think, well my “more retail clients” (the proverbial mums and dads) would like a clearer and plainer style. But that style would be no good for my commercial clients.
Maybe you are right. But consider two things:
First, at the end of the day, when your commercial clients go home, those same people are retail customers and retail investors. In that capacity, it’s almost certain that they want the documents they read to make sense, to be clear, and to be easy to deal with. And it’s almost certain they feel like that about the documents they read at work to - when no one would see them as a retail person at all.
Second, are your emails in the same style as your letters? Unlikely. Which style do your most commercial clients prefer? Sure there’s a spectrum of styles. With a quick informal administrative email at one end of the spectrum and say, a letter to be included in a prospectus at the other end. But it’s likely that your clients would be happier if you wrote many of your letters in a style similar to the style you use in your more formal emails.
To be fair, it all depends on your audience and your purpose. If you are writing to a government regulator to crave an indulgence (say, an extension of time or a waiving of penalty fees) then by all means be fairly formal and traditional. Likewise, if you are writing to a client who is 65 and an English teacher from the old school (or worse, he’s the person who taught you grammar at your old school - yikes!), then maybe it’s best to take the formality etc. up a level.
But the rest of the time, we need to recognize that there is a comfortable space in between being too formal and being too informal. That is the place your readers probably want you to be in when you write. If you’re in that space, then you’re likely to write in a way that they can understand, and in a way that makes them feel you really are client-focused, and maybe even innovative.
In turn, you’ll probably be happier in that space too. It will feel more natural, more human, and more alive.
After all, for most humans (whether as writers or as readers), a clear, direct, and personal style is likely to be much better, especially for business writing. Better in the sense that it enables people to understand a document the first time they read it. Better in the sense that having finished reading, they are likely to feel positively towards you - the writer. They’ll feel more positive because your document has made it easy for them to know what to do next and how to do it.
Maybe your readers will even refer clients to you, saying “You know, I can understand everything she writes the first time I read it. That alone gives me confidence and saves me time.”
(Just thinking about “on the other hand” for a moment. Do you think any clients say to their friends and colleagues “Yeah use my accountant. Nice guy. Knows his stuff. The best thing is, I can’t understand anything he says or writes. It’s fantastic. His style is formal, traditional, and heavy. It’s almost like dealing with a lawyer.”)
Today, clients are increasingly prepared to pay for documents they can understand. One day soon, they’ll refuse to pay for documents they can’t understand. Fair enough too.
Christopher Balmford is an internationally recognized expert in making legal and related documents clear, accurate, and easy to use. For more information, visit his Plain Language website and learn how this can benefit any business.
Unless you’ve been on vacation all summer, the brawl between Google and Microsoft should be old news. New developments, however, have occurred with publication of the non-compete agreement signed by Kai-Fu Lee.
Google v. Microsoft
Earlier this year, Kai-Fu Lee quit Microsoft to go work for Google. In doing so, Lee allegedly violated a non-compete agreement he had signed with Microsoft. Predictably, Microsoft sued Lee to prevent the move and the brawl began. Microsoft landed the first punch by getting a temporary restraining order preventing Lee from working for Google until the case is resolved.
Non-Compete Language
As matters have moved forward, the language in the non-compete agreement has become public knowledge. Generally, Lee agreed not to work for a major competitor of Microsoft if he left the company for a period of one year. The specifics of the language, however, are grossly entertaining
In signing the non-compete agreement, Lee agreed:
1. “…not to accept employment or engage in activities competitive with products, services or projects…of Microsoft…I worked on or …learned confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets while employed.”
2. All litigation arising from the non-compete agreement would occur in the State of Washington.
Mr. Lee and Google have a serious problem. California courts rarely enforce non-compete agreements, while Washington courts do. Since Microsoft sued first and Lee specifically agreed to Washington jurisdiction, this case should remain in Washington. Google is trying to move jurisdiction to California, but Microsoft beat it to the punch. Google’s attorneys simply blew it.
Prediction
Predictions in legal disputes are iffy at best, but Mr. Lee and Google have really fallen on their face in this one. Why they didn’t sue Microsoft in California court before Microsoft could react is mind boggling. The deck is now stacked heavily in favor of Microsoft and you can expect an outright victory for Microsoft or a settlement on terms set by the company.
About the Author: Richard A. Chapo is a San Diego business lawyer with http://www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com - providing legal services and legal advice to businesses in San Diego, California.
Source: www.isnare.com