This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Explanation: Having appointed as lawyer and designated his/her office as the address for service:
Maître X Lawyer of the X Bar Association 23 Avenue X - 75000 PARIS
who is appointed (to act) in this summons and subsequent matters
The favoured translation of "avocat" is "lawyer" as the French term embraces the "varieties" found in some other jurisdictions. I don't possess a copy of Bridge but if my memory serves me correctly he uses this translation.
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
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 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.
@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.
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 :)
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.
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).
@ 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.
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:
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.
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.
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
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
20 hrs confidence: peer agreement (net): -1
is counsel [or attorney] of record for
Explanation: "Lequel se constitue sur la présente assignation et ses suites" = "Who is counsel of record for the present summons and matters flowing therefrom."
You could phrase "matters flowing therefrom" a few other ways and still remain in the proper legalistic register, and some jurisdictions may have slightly different ways of phrasing it that are commonly used there.
Explanation: Having appointed as lawyer and designated his/her office as the address for service:
Maître X Lawyer of the X Bar Association 23 Avenue X - 75000 PARIS
who is appointed (to act) in this summons and subsequent matters
The favoured translation of "avocat" is "lawyer" as the French term embraces the "varieties" found in some other jurisdictions. I don't possess a copy of Bridge but if my memory serves me correctly he uses this translation.
AllegroTrans United Kingdom Local time: 11:30 Meets criteria Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 1355