SafeTex Jul 30, 2020:

@ Eliza Nope I didn't say that but it doesn't matter. I'm also not the first person you have accused of vehemently disagreeing with you although when it comes to disagreeing, you are of course number 1 by a long shot.
Chao

Eliza Hall Jul 30, 2020:

SafeTex, what's your point? Do you think it should say "attorney in the present summons"? I think that sounds ridiculous and wouldn't be said, but your opinion, however ill informed, may vary.

I'm not sure why you're so attached to vehemently disagreeing with me regardless of whether you have a reasonable basis for disagreement, but to each their own. Have a nice day.

SafeTex Jul 30, 2020:

@ Eiza Firstly

"attorney FOR the matter" gets 30 hits
"attorney IN the matter gets 2,770 000 hits

when I google them from France

Try working out why that is.

Secondly

No one would say:

I'm attorney/counsel of record for the summons.

Eliza Hall Jul 29, 2020:

Counsel/attorney for a matter SafeTex said: "if you are 'counsel/lawyer for...', it is 'for SOMEONE'

No, SafeTex, that is not the case. I can be the attorney [or counsel, or in the UK barrister] for XYZ corporation, for the plaintiff, for a person, certainly. But I can also be attorney/counsel/etc. for a matter (a contract, piece of litigation, etc.). Same preposition, different object.

If you had googled this, you would have found:

"if the GAL has an attorney for the matter, opposing counsel may not communicate with the GAL... without the consent of the attorney." https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/publications/chapt... (p.86 of PDF).

You may be eligible for a public defender if you're "unable to pay the anticipated cost of an attorney for the matter." https://www.seattle.gov/courts/coming-to-court/obtaining-a-p...

"Record who the Responsible Attorney for the Matter is" https://support.clio.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003487694-How-...

If you "choose to engage [our firm] or another recommended attorney for the matter..." https://www.ecpa.org/page/legal_hotline?

SafeTex Jul 29, 2020:

@ Eliza that is true but if you are "counsel/lawyer for...", it is "for SOMEONE"

Otherwise, you should have changed the preposition

e.g. Lawyer for X ACTING IN this case/these proceedings.

But you didn't and so your suggestion with "for" doesn't work as it results in

"Attorney/Counsel of Records FOR the summons" !!!

Eliza Hall Jul 29, 2020:

For - not whom but what @SafeTex and AllegroTrans: Anna has requested a translation of the italicized text --

"Lequel se constitue sur la présente assignation et ses suites..."

For = sur: counsel of record for the present summons and subsequent proceedings relating thereto. That is the matter for which the attorney has been engaged.

As you point out, AllegroTrans, the "whom" will have been stated somewhere else in the document. It's not stated in this bit that we've been asked to translate. This bit doesn't say for what client; it says for what matter.

SafeTex Jul 29, 2020:

@ Allegro Hello

Yep, that's pretty much right except that if you summon someone, it's hard to know who is going to represent them in advance, so if there is the name of a lawyer on the summons, it's more likely to be for the plaintiff. I looked back at the previous answer and this is the assumption that I now assume they made.

But beyond that, I'm fed up with the continual disagrees from the same person who on this occasion gives an incomplete suggestion in order to dodge the issue.

So it's "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a disagree for a disagree" each and every time now :)

Regards

AllegroTrans Jul 29, 2020:

Eliza and SafeTex I see defects in both of your proposed translations.

Eliza says counsel of record for - without saying for whom but as this "for" doesn't appear in the source text it's wrong. The person "for" whom the Counsel (should have a capital C) is being appointed has already been stated somewhere above.

Saftex has jumped the gun completely and added "the Plaintiff" without any evidence that this is the case and then added "et seq" which in legal drafting is only used for such things as following pages, following sections etc.

So I see little point n the two of you quarelling.

SafeTex Jul 29, 2020:

@ Eliza It's the same old problem with you as you are itching to disagree with everyone rather than working together.

Firstly, I do see your point but you simply dodge the question yourself by saying "counsel of record for".

For WHOM ??? There is no other information, NO info on who this lawyer represents in your suggested translation.

But that does not stop you from giving out yet another of your famous disagrees although you have your own suggestion up and would fare no better if scrutinized as I have done above.

So although I try not to disagree with answers that are interesting and possible, I apply the same strict criteria to you as you do to myself and others.

Your answer dodges the very issue you raise and is too American (I did searches by region to confirm this).

Eliza Hall Jul 28, 2020:

PS to SafeTex re summons/plaintiff @ SafeTex, you asked, in response to my disagree with your proposed translation, "Where's your evidence the summons is not being issued by the plaintiff but received by the defendant? How would a plaintiff know the name of the defendant's lawyer..."

That question does not even make sense. Maybe my comment was unclear: when I said "the person receiving a summons is not the plaintiff," I wasn't referring to this particular case, just to the definition of a summons (they don't go from defendant to plaintiff). No evidence other than the definition of "summons" is needed.

If this language appears on the summons itself, then it's coming from the plaintiff. If it's on something drafted in response to the summons, then it's from the defendant. We don't know OR CARE for purposes of translation, because all we need to say is "counsel/attorney/barrister of record." That works no matter what document this language is from.

And in any event, the lawyer named is the lawyer for whichever party the document comes from. They know who their own lawyer is.

Eliza Hall Jul 28, 2020:

Tedious but necessary for SafeTex Just so we're clear, "counsel of record" can be used in at least the US, Canada, and England/Wales. "Counsel," when used in a legal context, means "lawyer" throughout the English-speaking world. A few links:

Constantine Partasides, QC, of this London firm, "was counsel of record" in XYZ cases: https://www.threecrownsllp.com/location/london/page/3/

Canadian legal article (p.9): "...it is a lawyer's duty to appear before the court if he or she is counsel of record."
https://www.advocates.ca/Upload/Files/PDF/Advocacy/Institute...

If you are writing for a specifically British audience, you could also replace "counsel" with "barrister" (i.e., "barrister of record"). Same difference -- but that won't work for a US or general/worldwide audience.

AllegroTrans Jul 28, 2020:

"instructed on this summons and its consequences" sounds very unnatural

Mpoma Jul 28, 2020:

@Anna Have you looked up the archives here before posting this? I don't know how long you've been on Proz, but it is a courtesy to the community to do some basic research before posting anything, including looking things up in these archives.

Anna Davies (asker) Jul 27, 2020:

Having instructed a lawyer and elected legal address in his office:

X
Lawyer at the Paris bar
23, Avenue X - 75000 PARIS

Who is instructed on this summons and its consequences