- Res Ipsa Loquitur. Abra cadabra. Caveat emptor. Avarda cadavra. Why do lawyers use such funny words? It actually it has
nothing to do with lawyers inventing highfalutin legal
words in order to sound smart. We're that already. And as a graduate of both
law school and Hogwarts, I can tell you that lawyers
don't have magic words. But over time, all professions build up a special vocabulary
to help describe things in very specific language. And usually, it's not magic. But sometimes it is sort of magic. And when Mark Jaffe posted on Twitter, What genuine law term sounds fake? You have to convince people
you didn't make it up? I knew I had to share some of the most ridiculous legal terms out there. And if I have to deal with
these legal terms every day, I'm taking you Legal Eagles with me. (bright music) Sponsored by CuriosityStream and Nebula. All right, so the first
ridiculous legal term that we have to deal
with is Pendente lite. Now you might think this
is a Mexican low-cal beer. Pendente lite, taste the lawyer. Or maybe, it's a fancy pendant light, or perhaps, it is the lowest
weight class in boxing, pendente lite, one step below
the 108-pound flyweight. But what it actually is,
has nothing to do with YouTubers turning into boxers. Pendente lite is a Latin term meaning awaiting the litigation
or pending the litigation. You often see this during
divorce and custody litigation. A court can issue a
temporary order of support, pendente lite, to maintain
the financial status quo of all parties of the
divorce while it's pending. And court orders are often
used to provide relief until the final judgment is rendered. And the adverbial form of this, it would be a lis pendens, but that's also its own
special legal document, usually regarding real estate. Oh God, this is already
getting incredibly complicated, but onto the second ridiculous
term, which is champerty. Now you might think that champerty is a character from
the TV show, Bridgerton announcing Lady Champerty of
the North Hampstead Sherford upon Tim's Champertys. Might be a fraternity drinking game. It might be something people on HGTV's House Hunters would complain about not having in their home, like the champerty water
fountain for their dogs. But what it actually is is when a third party funds litigation. Now, historically, this was known as maintenance and champerty. Back in the middle ages, nobles started funding
frivolous lawsuits to buttress the claims and take a share
of any profits for themselves. And Black's law dictionary defines this as a champertous agreement, as a quote, "bargain between a stranger and a party to a lawsuit by
which the stranger pursues the parties claims in consideration for receiving part of any
judgment of the proceeds." And perhaps the most interesting
thing is that these days, these kinds of agreements
are generally not illegal. There's a whole world of
litigation finance out there, that in the olden days, would have been considered
champerty and illegal. For example, now a hedge fund
could invest in litigation that the plaintiffs couldn't
afford to fund on their own. It actually allows more people
to access the justice system than otherwise would be able
to do because of the funds that they or their lawyers
do or don't possess. But on the other hand, the funding party could be a
billionaire who has a grudge against someone else. As we saw with the Peter Thiel lawsuits through Hulk Hogan against Gawker. So you know, a double-edged sword. But that takes us to the
next ridiculous legal term, which is Mutatis Mutandis, which could be the High Valyrian
for all lawyers must die. Or it could be an outtake from the Lion King giving Timon and Pumbaa a followup to Hakuna Matata. - What a wonderful phrase. - Or it could be the title given to the most important
praying mantis in the world. Well, actually it's a Latin phrase that means with things
change that should be changed or having changed what
needs to be changed. It pops up a lot in legal circles when lawyers are drafting contracts. The simplest explanation
is for use in the law and that the necessary changes in details such as names and places will be made but everything else will remain the same. That explanation comes from
the famous Judge Scheindlin. No, not that Judge Scheindlin,
Judge Shira Scheindlin who is well-known to all lawyers for her round breaking decisions
in electronic discovery which still formed the
backbone of federal rules that govern electronic
information in litigation which takes us to the next
ridiculous legal term. The suggestion of death. Now is the suggestion
of death a proper way of insulting opposing counsel? I moved to strike opposing
counsel upon suggestion of death. Is it a spell or event
from Dungeons and Dragons? Is it what happens in the Oregon Trail when you unsuccessfully
tried to forward a river? Or is it a Charles Bronson
movie suggestion of death from the producers of
Death Wish and Chasing Amy? Well, actually, according
to Henry Campbell Black the man who literally wrote
the book On Legal Terms, he explains that the suggestion of death is a quote, "statement
formally entered on the record of some fact or circumstance
which will materially affect further proceedings in the cause." I know it looks weird since
a person's death is usually not a suggestion, it's a fact, but a suggestion of death functions as a legal announcement of death
and FYI to inform the court and opposing parties that
a key person has died. A case doesn't necessarily go away just because someone dies
although that can happen. But this is just a lawyer's
way of letting everyone know that something kind of major
has happened in the case. Which takes us to the next
ridiculous legal term, an attractive nuisance. Isn't an attractive nuisance the person you run into
a bar at last call? - You feeling what I'm feeling? - If it's resignation then yes. (audience laughing) - Is it the song that you
can't get out of your head? Is it free cake in the office break room when you're on a diet? Is it when your pets or
children are annoying you while you're trying to work from home especially when you're on a zoom call? - Pardon me. - Well, actually an attractive
nuisance is something that's on your property that is attractive and exciting to children. Property owners have a special
duty of care to children and teens because they
can't fully understand the dangers posed by certain situations. This means that if you
have a bucket of candy or a PS5 sitting on a float
in your swimming pool, you might expect the children
are going to trespass onto your property. And while often you're not
obligated to protect trespassers, sometimes you have to
look out for those stupid, attractive, nuisance children. In other words, you're
obligated to mitigate the danger by taking steps to prevent them
from accessing the property. Put up a fence, cover the pool and keep your video games
downstairs in your mom's basement. Which takes us to the next
ridiculous legal term. A heartbalm tort. Now a heartbalm tort
could be an assignment on The Great British Baking Show. Probably something really dumb, like a whole peach wrapped
in 1000 layers of pastry and then baked for some
ridiculous amount of time like 12 hours, could be, blink. - Love the flavor. It's a charming cake,
little bit of a mess. - Thank you so much. - It could be a magic spell. I command a level five
heart balm tort against you or it could be a hallmark
movie about a down and out heart surgeon Michael Bomb who leaves his big city practice to start up a bakery and falls in love with a woman who can't
stop eating his mini pies. But actually a heartbalm tort is a specific kind of
civil suit often referred to as a tort that is
brought against someone who has interfered in a
relationship or made a promise that they didn't keep. This lets people sue
their spouses para moral or bring charges against men
who promised to marry someone but then backed out. These suits flourished
in the early 20th century when newspapers featured lurid
tales of gold digging harlots who broke up marriages and
then preyed on widowers. Eventually there were so
many heartbalm tort cases that they were actually
abolished in more than 40 States. But that takes us to the
next ridiculous legal term, a frolic and detour. Now is a frolic and detour a pair of animated mischievous kittens, as in Tom and Jerry, Itchy and Scratchy? Is it the new Michael Chabon's novel or is it the newest Kardashian baby name? Frolic and detour along
with rumor scout Apple, Northwest and Elon Musk's formula. Well, actually it's a term that
covers the little side trip that an employee takes when
they're supposed to be on duty. And of course, when accidents happen, who's responsible when an
employee does something that's on their own, but on company time? Well, generally employers are liable for any damages caused by their employees. But if someone is acting way
outside the scope of their job, the employer might be able to show that the employees should
be held legally responsible. A Frolic is when an
employee totally departs from his or her duties. Let's say your boss sends
you to OfficeMax for supplies but on the way there
you stop off at a casino to play some slot machines for an hour. And on the way back you get into a traffic accident. The trip to the casino
is completely unrelated to your job duties. So the employer won't
be legally responsible. On the other hand a near detour is just
more of a minor deviation that probably doesn't absolve
your employer of liability. For example, if you go to
OfficeMax, in our example and then stop at
Starbucks on your way back and then get into a traffic accident. In this instance you've probably only made a slight deviation from your job duty so the accident may be
within the scope of your job and your employer might
have to pay for the damages. But that takes us to the
next ridiculous legal term, quiet enjoyment. Now is quiet enjoyment the nap
time at a Montessori school after you have already played
a game of heads up seven up? Is it something your
parents desperately want especially during COVID or is it a cover band for quiet riot? Well, actually quite enjoyment comes up in the real estate context. It's usually a covenant of quiet enjoyment and it is one of the promises
that a property owner or tenant gets as part of his or her right to possess and use the property. This means that the person has the right to enjoy the property
without interference. This covers things like a
landlord repeatedly harassing a tenant or vermin inside
the walls making noises at all hours of the day and night. If you are renting property, you have the right to quiet enjoyment and that might mean you're
able to listen to quiet right. But that takes us to the
next ridiculous legal term. This one is one of my favorites,
a fertile octogenarian. Now is a fertile octogenarian Mick Jagger, Larry
King, a rejected Pokemon or the title of TLC's
newest hit reality show, I'm marrying a fertile octogenarian? Well, a fertile octogenarian
may actually refer to all of those things,
but in a legal context it means something very specific. This usually involves property law and it's the source of many
headaches for law students because a fertile octogenarian
is a fictitious character that we make up in property
law to demonstrate the concept against the rule against perpetuities. And while it often takes a long time to wrap your head around it, it's actually kind of a simple concept that is meant to make sure that there is certainty
about who gets what. If you're going to give property to a certain category of people you have to know that all
of those peoples are certain within 21 years of the death
of the person who is living. So for example, if you said,
I give all of my property to aunt Bertha who was 100 years old and all of aunt Bertha's children. Well, the thing is, even though aunt Bertha is 100 years old, the law presumes that she
could have more children. So that bequest doesn't work because it violates the
rule against perpetuities because we assume that even
if you're an octogenarian, the law thinks that you
still could be fertile. Look, I don't know, the law is weird. What do you want from me? But that takes us to the
next ridiculous legal term, an unborn widow. Now is an unborn widow
an Amish romance novel? Is it a sad Bon Iver song
which is there any other kind? Or is it a Christian horror movie about a ghost that was never born because the couple used
contraceptives instead? Well, actually an unborn
widow is actually related to the last fertile octogenarian. Yes, property law is the
gift that keeps on giving. Now let's see how to complicated will and you wanted to leave a
house to, let's say, Gary, for his life and then to
Gary's widow for her life and then to Gary's children,
after they pass away. Now the property can't
be given to Gary's widow until Gary is dead which is totally fine
from a legal perspective. But property law asks us to
assume the most ridiculous far out thing imaginable,
like what happens if Gary marries a woman
who isn't even born at the time that you
made the gift to Gary? What if Gary is actually Mick Jagger and you left him a house back in 1980 but Mick Jagger later
marries a woman born in 1999. But here's the problem, he could die and then his new bride could outlive him for way longer than 21 years. And the rule against perpetuity says that the interest must
vest within 21 years. So that transfer would be
invalid from the outset because of the possibility
of the unborn widow. But frankly I think my movie
idea is a way better one anyway but that takes us to the
next ridiculous legal term, a precocious toddler. Now is a precocious toddler a
hit podcast for moms who know that their toddler are gifted? Is it the name of Gwyneth
Paltrow's baby store? Is it a never made Adam Sandler
movies starring Kevin James as Adam Sandler's son? I mean, who wouldn't want to see that? I'm just full of great movie ideas. But in reality a precocious
toddler goes back to property law once more and our favorite rule
against perpetuities. Because we've already
talked about how the law requires you to believe
completely insane things like an octogenarian, being
fertile or the ability for anyone to marry someone
who isn't even born yet. And if you have to assume those things, you better believe the
law requires you to think that everyone one is fertile at birth. I went to law school for this. Frankly this is all just jiggery-pokery which is our next ridiculous legal word. Now is jiggery-pokery a
phrase that will get you fired from work because it's racist? Is it an old-timey card
game that is racist? Is it a very outdated Disney park ride that seems just a little bit racist? Or is it a beloved vintage children's book that might be racist? Well actually children
this racist sounding phrase isn't racist at all. It's just some bizarre slang from England that Justice Antonin Scalia picked up, but it's a bit of a punch because it literally means legal nonsense. The earliest known use of this
phrase was actually in 1845 by the Berkshire Chronicle
in Reading England. The article was called
protection to agriculture and it commented that
under the present law the averages were made up
so faithfully and fairly as to prevent any jiggery pokery. And Justice Scalia deployed
the phrase jiggery pokery to attack Chief Justice Roberts for the court six to three decision that it was legal for the
IRS to extend tax credits for the affordable care
act to federal exchanges as well as those created by the States. So that takes us to our next terms. Flummery, tommyrot,
balderdash and poppycock. Now no those aren't
technically legal words but they do describe
people who don't check out the extended version of this video over on Nebula. Is Dicta the head coach of Da bears or is it the source of one's manhood? In fact, almost all of my videos have an ad-free extended version on Nebula and now you can get a huge discount because sometimes talking
about jiggery pokery is too hot for YouTube, which is why
my creator friends and I teamed up to build our own platform where creators don't need to
worry about demonetization or the dreaded algorithm. It's called Nebula and we're
thrilled to be partnering with Curiosity Stream. Because Nebula is a place where creators can do
what they do best, create. And it's a place where we can
both house our content ad free and also experiment with original content and new series that probably
wouldn't work on YouTube. So not only are my Nebula
versions ad free and extended but they're also released early
before the YouTube version. And Nebula features lots of YouTube's top educationalish creators like Lindsay Ellis hbomberguy
and Medlife Crisis. And we get to collaborate in ways that probably wouldn't work on YouTube and put out amazing original content, like half as interesting
as courtroom drama, where I play a real life fake lawyer. Now, what does this have to
do with Curiosity Stream? Well, as the go-to source for the best documentaries on the platform like Peter Siegel's history
they love educational creators. And we've worked out a
deal where if you sign up for Curiosity Stream with
the link in the description, you'll also get a Nebula
subscription for free. And to be clear, that Nebula subscription is not a trial, it's free for as long as you're a Curiosity Stream member. And right now Curiosity Stream is offering 26% off of their annual plans. That's less than $15 a year for both Curiosity Stream
and Nebula together. So if you click on the
link in the description you'll get both Curiosity
Stream and Nebula for 26% off. Or you can go to
CuriosityStream.com/legalEagle. It's a great way to support this channel and educational content
directly for under $15 per year. So just click on the
link in the description plus click on that link
really helps out this channel. So do you agree with my analysis about all these crazy legal terms? Leave your objections in
the comments and check out this playlist over here
with all of my other videos about crazy laws and
legal misunderstanding. So click on this playlist
or I'll see you in court.
