{"id":7595,"date":"2007-05-09T11:32:09","date_gmt":"2007-05-09T16:32:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/05\/09\/big-news-accurate-doesnt-always-me"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:48","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:48","slug":"big-news-accurate-doesnt-always-mean-clear","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/05\/09\/big-news-accurate-doesnt-always-mean-clear\/","title":{"rendered":"big news: accurate doesn’t always mean clear"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\"questionDudeT\"\u00a0The Seventh Circuit federal appellate court made it pretty clear to Equifax\u00a0last week: credit reports must be accurate and <\/em>clear — mere accuracy is not\u00a0sufficient when disclosing information to consumers under\u00a0the Fair Credit Report Act (15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681g(a)(1).\u00a0\u00a0Brian Wolfman at the Consumer Law and Policy Blog<\/em><\/a> reported on the case of Gillespie v. Equifax Information Services, L.L.P<\/em><\/a>., No. 06-1952 (May 3, 2007), over the weekend. (via Ambrogi at LegalBlogWatch<\/em><\/a>)\u00a0\u00a0Brian even edited his post the next day, to remove a potential\u00a0ambiguity.\u00a0 In fact, overtaken with the\u00a0desire for clarity, Judge Kanne concluded the 7th Circuit’s opinion with a paragraph that\u00a0began:<\/p>\n

“In conclusion, we must note the scope of our decision and the next steps to be taken in this case…”\u00a0\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Far too often, and especially where a decision sends the case back for further proceedings, the client and the lawyer, and often the lower court, are a bit confused or uncertain about what happens next.\u00a0 Let’s be clear, however: The Gillespie<\/em> opinion,\u00a0which merely resolved a summary judgment motion and not Equifax’s actual legal liability,\u00a0is based on a statute that requires the agency to disclose\u00a0certain information “clearly and accurately.”\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"questionDudeSN\"\u00a0There is no general mandate in consumer or commercial law for clarity in disclosures — and, there’s absolutely no rule in our adversarial legal system for lawyers to be clear, even when they’re trying to be accurate.\u00a0 Of course, it almost goes without saying that family law in no way<\/em> helps assure that the tweener and adolescent “lawyers”\u00a0at you house will — should they deign to respond to inquiries at all — be both truthful and easy to understand.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

rainy day
\nthe left hand
\nmuddy<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

morning dew–
\nno hiding the way
\nwe’ve come<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

seventh-inning stretch —\u00a0 \"umpireF\"
\ndust from dragging the bases
\nhangs in the air\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

ground fog
\nup to my ankles
\nin moonlight<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

walking in
\nthe orchard\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 suddenly
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 its\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 plan<\/p>\n

…… by Jim Kacian<\/a>
\n“rainy day” – Roadrunner Haiku Journal<\/a><\/em> (V: I, Dec. 18, 2005)
\n“seventh-inning stretch — ” – Baseball Haiku<\/a><\/em> (2007)\u00a0
\n“morning dew” – Six Directions<\/em>; snow on the water<\/em> (RMA 1998)
\n“walking in” – Presents of Mind<\/a><\/em> (1996; 2006); orig. pub Six Directions<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

p.s.<\/strong> Speaking of speaking clearely, I discovered at Kare Anderson<\/a>‘s\u00a0Say It Better<\/em> weblog<\/a>\u00a0yesterday that Jon Winokur’s newest book is The Big Book of Irony<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In it Winokur “defines and classifies irony and contrasts it with coincidence and cynicism, and other oft-confused concepts that many think are ironic.”\u00a0 Kare lists a few examples<\/a> from the book.\u00a0 f\/k\/a<\/em> fans know that abuse of the word “ironic” is a pet peeve<\/a> around here.<\/p>\n

sun tea darkens–
\nbees in the hollyhocks
\nall afternoon<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

another scorcher–
\nthe muddy river’s
\nslow flow
\n……………..\u00a0by Billie Wilson<\/a>\u00a0 \"eyechart\"
\n“sun tea darkens” –\u00a0 Acorn<\/em><\/a> #16 (2006)
\n“muddy river” – Acorn<\/em> 13 (2004)<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\u00a0The Seventh Circuit federal appellate court made it pretty clear to Equifax\u00a0last week: credit reports must be accurate and clear — mere accuracy is not\u00a0sufficient when disclosing information to consumers under\u00a0the Fair Credit Report Act (15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1681g(a)(1).\u00a0\u00a0Brian Wolfman at the Consumer Law and Policy Blog reported on the case of Gillespie v. Equifax […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[555,3513],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7595","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-haiku-or-senryu","category-lawyer-news-or-ethics"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1Yv","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7595","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7595"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7595\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12544,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7595\/revisions\/12544"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7595"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}