Legal writing benefits from the use of precise verbs. The best advocates, in my opinion, convey their argument through action words, instead of resorting to adjectives or adverbs. (As a simple example, compare “the defendants are wrong in arguing . . . ” to “the defendants err by . . . “) Often using adjectives or adverbs to describe an opponent results in a brief that seems petulent rather than persuasive. Since I like interesting verbs, I am often on the lookout for them. Here is one from Judge Easterbrook’s collection.

“Five months after its answer to the complaint had been due, EGA filed a motion to vacate the default, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), blaming Meadowbrook for the earlier inaction. The magistrate judge recommended that this motion be denied, observing that the best way to give Meadowbrook an incentive to take care is to amerce EGA, which could shift the expense to Meadowbrook. But the district judge concluded that the injury attributable to Meadowbrook’s neglect is much less than $31 million, making the proposed award disproportionate to the wrong. In the judge’s view, the lack of correspondence between EGA’s limited fault and the $31 million award was “good cause” for reopening the case. The judge thus set aside the default, while holding open the possibility that a more appropriate sanction might be in order.” Sims v. EGA Prods., No. 06-1057 (7th Cir. Jan. 24 2007).

Amerce means to punish in a discretionary (as opposed to a statutory) manner. I find it a wonderfully specialized verb. Its obscurity (well, at least I had never seen it used before, necessitating a peek at the dictionary!) might render it ill suited for briefing without a doublet (amerce and sanction them all!), but wonderful for law clerks and judges.