Explore as questões disponíveis e prepare-se para seus estudos!
Atenção! Leia o texto a seguir para responder à próxima questão.
The Two Goats
Two Goats, frisking gayly on the rocky steeps of a mountain valley, chanced to meet, one on each side of a deep chasm through which poured a mighty mountain torrent. The trunk of a fallen tree formed the only means of crossing the chasm, and on this not even two squirrels could have passed each other in safety. The narrow path would have made the bravest tremble. Not so our Goats. Their pride would not permit either to stand aside for the other.
One set her foot on the log. The other did likewise. In the middle they met horn to horn. Neither would give way, and so they both fell, to be swept away by the roaring torrent below.
Library of Congress. The Aesop for children. Library of Congress, 2024. Disponível em: https://read.gov/aesop/013.html. Acesso em: 12 jul. 2024.
Leia o texto seguinte e responda a questão.
Translegal, LLC
Translegal, LLC works to formulate strategies to accomplish our clients' international business goals. We provide specialized consulting services related to international legal and commercial issues, including business development, coordinating international commercial litigation dispute resolution cases, legal research, Hague and Inter-American Convention applications and requests, global trademark registrations, government relations and translations.
Translegal founder, Francisco Laguna, has worked in international law and consulting firm settings both in the United States and abroad, including countries such as Colombia, the Dominican Republic, France, Luxembourg and Spain.
Mr. Laguna comprehends the differences among legal and commercial cultures. He bridges the gaps between common law and civil law systems, understands the nuances of doing business internationally and advises clients accordingly. Mr. Laguna works with clients and the professionals of the TransLegal Network to formulate specific strategies to accomplish their goals or to resolve disputes.
Our services include international consulting and research, foreign and domestic service of process, foreign evidence requests, including the taking of sworn testimony, government relations, global trademark searches and registration, transnational administrative procedures and translations.
With offices in over 30 countries, the Translegal Network provides coordinated multinational consulting services by notaries public, attorneys, lobbyists, research associates and other professionals.
(Extraído do site www.translegalinc.com)
Atenção: A questão refere-se ao texto abaixo.
Judges Push Brevity in Briefs, and Get a Torrent of Arguments
By ELIZABETH OLSON
OCT. 3, 2016
The Constitution of the United States clocks in at 4,543 words. Yet a number of lawyers contend that 14,000 words are barely enough to lay out their legal arguments.
That’s the maximum word count for briefs filed in federal appellate courts. For years, judges have complained that too many briefs are repetitive and full of outmoded legal jargon, and that they take up too much of their time.
A recent proposal to bring the limit down by 1,500 words unleashed an outcry among lawyers.
Lawyers in criminal, environmental and securities law insisted that briefs’ lengths should not be shortened because legal issues and statutes are more complex than ever
As a result, the new word limit − which takes effect on Dec. 1 − will be 13,500 words, a reduction of only 500 words. And appellate judges will have the freedom to opt out of the limits.
The new limit may not provide much relief for judges deluged with verbose briefs.
While workloads vary, according to federal court data, the average federal appeals court judge, for example, might need to read filings for around 1,200 cases annually.
That amount of reading − especially bad reading − can thin the patience of even the most diligent judge.
Briefs “are too long to be persuasive,” said Laurence H. Silberman, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
In arguing against a reduction of words, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers urged singling out “bad briefs” rather than only lengthy ones. It advised courts to “post on their court websites short videos outlining how to write a decent brief.”
Robert N. Markle, a federal appellate lawyer, has argued − in his own personal view, not the government’s − that the limit should be reduced to 10,000 words. In a typical case, he said, “nothing justifies even approaching, much less reaching or exceeding 14,000 words.”
Still, he acknowledged that the cut of 500 words “was at least a start.”
(Adapted from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/business/dealbook/judges-push-brevity-in-briefs-and-get-a-torrent-of-arguments. html?_r=0)