Footnote cross-referencing.

Here at matthewb.com we specialize in providing a website with no nutritional value whatsoever. But today we have a special feature.

This past spring, when I did the law review write-on, I cursed the fact that there wasn’t a way to cross-reference footnotes in Word. Meaning, if you got to the end and had to insert or delete a footnote, all your supras and infras would be screwed up.

Strictly speaking, I should’ve been cursing my own ignorance, because there is a way to do it, which is a phenomenal freakin’ time saver. So in the rare spirit of public service, I present:

How to Cross-Reference Footnotes in Word

  1. In the main text, select the number of the footnote you want to cross-reference.

  2. From the Insert menu, select Bookmark. Type a useful name for the footnote (“boring_journal_article”) and click the Add button.

  3. Go into the footnotes and put the cursor where you want the cross-reference. From the Insert menu, select Field.

  4. Now, don’t get intimidated, this is the most difficult, but magical step. From the Categories popup menu, select Links and References. Then, from the Field Names box below that, select NoteRef. In the middle, you will see a list with your bookmark name in it. Select it and click the OK button.

  5. Voila, a cross-reference has been inserted. If you now add or subtract footnotes, the cross-reference can be updated with the right number. You can copy & paste this reference instead of going back to the Insert Field menu.

  6. One more important thing. Word doesn’t automatically update fields when they change. You have two options: a) go to Tools > Options > Print tab and check off ‘Update fields’. This will update all fields before you print. b) Update the fields manually by selecting all the text and typing F9.

matthewb.com is not responsible for any errors or omissions in the above instructions. We are not liable for any direct or consequential damages arising from your use of the above information. You agree that you insert cross-references at your own risk and waive all claims, known and unknown, including those otherwise allowed by Cal. Civ. C. § 1542. Your visiting this website constitutes acceptance of these terms & conditions.

02 Dec 05

Comments

Best Slide nominee, 2005.

My Litigation professor came up with this amazing work of Powerpoint art. In it, he synthesizes all the fundamental metaphysical questions that we humans have coped with since birth. Please enjoy.

02 Dec 05

Comments

Curb your common carrier.

Those of you who saw the Curb Your Enthusiasm recently where the orthodox Jewish woman jumped from a ski lift ... you did recognize this as the fact pattern from Friedman v. State of New York, 282 N.Y.S.2d 858 (1967), did you not.

If I were a screenwriter I’d get a Lexis account. Why think of new ideas? It’s a gold mine. Unfortunately, this was not the end of Ms. Friedman’s suffering, which went on to include:

On March 18, 1964, Miss Friedman testified that she “blacked out” and fell on a subway platform in New York City. She went to Dr. Emanuel Dubrow, her family pediatrician, who treated her for a slight laceration of the right labia majora.

See Friedman, 282 N.Y.S.2d at 867.

05 Dec 05

Comments

If I remembered anything from a layman’s version of Entertainment Law, it’s that when you write screenplays based on cases, you’d have to be very precise and careful about which facts to change and which facts to keep. If you’re not careful, you can easily get sued for defamation.

Posted by: CC at December 5, 2005 11:44 AM


Think positive thoughts.

An excellent article in the WSJ today about the high failure rate of the California bar exam. Kathleen Sullivan, recent dean of Stanford Law School, failed this time around. Her soon-to-be employer, William Urquhart, ran interference:

“She is a rock star,” says William Urquhart, who last year recruited Ms. Sullivan to join his firm, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP ... “The problem is not with Kathleen Sullivan, it is with the person who drafted the exam or the person who graded it.”

Mr. Urquhart says he does not know Ms. Sullivan’s score, but knows she spent little time preparing because she was inundated with work for the firm and Stanford Law School, where she now runs the school’s constitutional law center. [Awww, poor little you.–Ed.] Ms. Sullivan plans to take the test again, according to Mr. Urquhart. “She’ll prepare more next time,” he says. “My advice to her is that she should look at 15 bar questions and 15 sample, perfect answers. That is all she’ll need to pass.”

Ah, the old ‘blame the exam’ trick. Does everyone at Quinn Emanuel who fails the bar exam get treated this well? No, didn’t think so. Instead of the buck-passing Ms. Sullivan, take your inspiration from this gentleman:

Ms. Sullivan is unlikely to need as many attempts as Maxcy Dean Filer, who may hold the California bar endurance record, having passed in 1991 after 47 unsuccessful tries. The Compton, Calif., man, who says he’ll practice any kind of law that “comes through the door—except probate and bankruptcy,” says he always tried to psych himself up before taking the test by repeating, “I didn’t fail the bar, the bar failed me.”

05 Dec 05

Comments

Not only that, but also how about the fact that the LSAT is another standardized test that is used as a screen. In other words, I highly doubt Quinn Emanuel seeks out those who did poorly on the LSAT, thus going to second-rate schools. According to the quoted partner, they should: After all, those who do poorly on the LSAT are just too smart for the test, right?

Posted by: Dave at December 7, 2005 10:30 PM

what disturbed me more than Urquhart’s explanation for why Sullivan failed the bar, was his description of her as “a rockstar”. I really think people need to be a little more conservative when it comes to throwing around this term. No offense to Kathy, but running the con law center at Stanford while part-timing it at Quinn Emanuel really doesn’t constitute “rockin’“. Unless, of course, she does blow and shacks up with roadies after hours - which I DOUBT she’s done since resigning as Dean. (not to mention, isn’t billable - check the model rules...)

Posted by: MD at December 7, 2005 11:51 PM

I am going to be so rich, it’s hard for me to give a shit.

Posted by: Kathy Sullivan at December 7, 2005 11:57 PM

maybe she prances around the Quinn office in tight black leather? Wears shades while in client meetings?

Posted by: not a rock star at December 8, 2005 12:18 AM


Sample answers.

Sometimes professors give out sample answers to old exams. This is useful for finding out what the prof is looking for, but not useful for estimating the quality of your current preparation.

Sometimes you get professor-written answers, sometimes student-written. Those can be a little shaming. For one of my exams I have a sample student answer to a 75-minute essay question given last time–it is 4,000 words long. That’s about what I can write in 3 hours ... if I’ve done a couple ‘bumps’ and had a triple latte.

To give a fuller perspective of the spectrum of exam performance, I’d prefer if profs provided some non-model answers in addition to the model answers. Namely, what was the absolute worst answer that still squeaked by with a C? Because if there are 4,000 word dramatic overachievers, there must be others who answered it in 500 words plus some doodles of puppies in the margin. That’s the person who’s going to give me the most confidence.

09 Dec 05

Comments

Top overused legal jargon.

During our first year of law school, it was drilled into us that the age of legal writing that involved words like “hereinunder” and “wherefore” has passed, a dusty relic. Simplicity is in. Normal english words are in. Semicolons are out.

Still, there are certain overused turns of phrase that crop up in the speech & writing of judges, lawyers and law professors (and eventually infect law students). These are phrases that are not needed to convey meaning. They only serve to confirm to the audience: hey, watch me talk about legal stuff. Forthwith:

  1. as to. I’ve already recognized its place in legal education but after another year, it remains the champ. These days I’m less convinced it means anything. The best part of ‘as to’ is that it commits you to mangling the rest of your sentence with pronouns and passive constructions. Watch the magic—

    The dog sniffed the hydrant.

    As to the dog, he sniffed the hydrant.

    As to the hydrant, it was sniffed by the dog.

    Are these improvements?

  2. as between, as among, as against, etc. Cousins of ‘as to’ but standalone offenders in their own right. Apparently, putting the word ‘as’ in front of any preposition makes it sound more legally authoritative. With the added benefit of the sentence-mangling features of ‘as to’. I’ll concede there are certain situations where ‘as to’ fills a semantic need. But I can’t say the same of these.
  3. cabin in. A favorite of law professors, as in ‘cabin in the jury’s discretion to award punitives’. It just means ‘limit’. Why do we need to cabin in something when we can just limit it? The image of a log structure out in the woods doesn’t add to my understanding.
  4. substantive. This term is occasionally useful when you need to make a distinction from its friend, procedural. But most of the time, it’s redundant.
  5. Instead of: The focus of the legislation is silly string.

    You get: The substantive focus of the legislation is silly string.

  6. violative of. This is the prime offender in a category of verbs turned into adjectives. The law didn’t merely violate the constitution–it was violative of the constitution. These are particularly objectionable because they subtract clarity without adding meaning.
  7. arising from. Used anytime causality needs to be shown. I’m sick from eating too much candy. But it sounds better if I have a sickness arising from eating too much candy.

Please, post your own favorites.

12 Dec 05

Comments

personal favorites: inapposite and unavailing

Posted by: jk at December 12, 2005 11:12 PM

prong

Posted by: at December 14, 2005 01:54 PM

i don’t think you can get any better than bainbridge’s two favorite words: disjunctive, and query

Posted by: at December 15, 2005 02:35 PM

i don’t think you can get any better than bainbridge’s two favorite words: disjunctive and query

Posted by: at December 15, 2005 02:35 PM

critical

Posted by: at January 12, 2006 08:54 AM


And that is the end of act 1.

16 Dec 05

Comments
matthewb @ ucla
Recent Drivel
Home page
Epilogue 8: Buy my book
Epilogue 7: Recessionaires cont'd
Epilogue 6: Schill quits UCLA
Epilogue 5: recessionaires
Okay, I lied. Epilogue 4
Epilogue 3: The End (really)
Epilogue 2: Nov 2007
Epilogue
The eagle has landed
Seduced by the dark side
You've been in law school too long when...
Diplomas
I have only five more class days
The lone gunman
The last spring break is over
Someone saved your life tonight
Best advice
Alumni donations
Dean Schill & the Pussymobile
Help me yet again
How time flies
January 2011
July 2010
September 2009
July 2009
September 2008
June 2008
November 2007
July 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004