Q:  What is the proper meaning of the word comprised? When I was in high school, I was taught that it meant "consisted of" and was not a synonym of "composed of." Has that grammatical rule been changed?

 A: That question requires more than a yes-or-no answer. Correct usage (though it is seldom observed) requires that "the whole comprises the parts" and "the parts compose the whole." So you would have to use comprised in the sentence, "This law office comprises five lawyers." Or you could say, "This law office is composed of five lawyers." What you could not say is,
"This law office is comprised of five lawyers."

That rule has been in effect ever since the verb comprises entered Middle English around 1400, although it has mostly been ignored. As late as in its 1996 edition, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language reports that 53% of its elite Usage Panel considers "is comprised of" unacceptable, although acknowledging that "many good writers ignore the rule."

But grammatical rules often change. The 2006 Random House Unabridged Dictionary lists the three traditional meanings for comprise and compose, but then adds that comprise can have a fourth meaning of "to be comprised of," thus, in the view of that authority, the previously incorrect sentence, "This law office is comprised of," is now correct. One element of the old meaning of comprise remaining in effect was that when you define a group as "comprised of," the group must have exactly that number of members. For example, "The advisory board comprises six members," implied that there are six members only.

However, a faithful reader has sent me a transcript of a September 2007 case that was decided by the U.S. Appeals Court, which turned the legal meaning of comprised completely around (at least in patent cases). "Comprised," the Court said, is "a transition term" that has an "open-ended" meaning. It is broader than consist because comprising does not exclude additional, elements. (My emphasis.) Thus it may have the same meaning in patent claim interpretation as "including, having, containing, and even wherein." That decision will not have any effect on the public's understanding of comprise, because almost everyone has already abandoned the traditional, narrow meaning.

I've noted previously that legal clients may misinterpret their lawyers' advice because the legal meaning of words may differ from their ordinary meaning. One such word is moot, which in legal matters is a question that is no longer arguable, but in ordinary language is a question that is arguable. Another is consideration, which the public uses to mean either "careful thought" or "concern for others," but whose legal meaning is "something of value sufficient to make a promise legally binding."

To make matters even more confusing, the ordinary meaning of consideration is "concern for others." But legal consideration is something promised, given, or done that makes a contract enforceable. In ordinary English duty means "moral obligation," as in "parental duty." But the legal "duty of reasonable care," the first element of a four-part definition of the tort of negligence, is the legal obligation to act like that legal construct, "a reasonable person."

Who is that “reasonable person”? All of us believe we are that person. Spinoza wrote long ago, at the beginning of his legal treatise “Ethics,” that each man believes that although others may be more intelligent or clever, he himself possesses an amount of commonsense as abundant as that of any man. And if you fail to exercise reason (i.e., commonsense) you may be liable for negligence. But the way the legal system defines negligence differs from the lay person’s definition of negligence. To a lay person, negligence is carelessness, the antonym of diligence. You are negligent if you fail to stop  at a stop sign.

However, that is only one part of the four-part definition of legal negligence. Part three of that definition is proximate cause, and that part resembles most closely what the ordinary person thinks of as “negligence.” The public almost never uses the phrase “proximate cause”; more familiar to most people is a close relative, the noun proximity, which refers to “nearness.”  Proximate cause, as all lawyers know, does relate to “nearness,” but the legal phrase proximate cause is defined as the last act that, without any intervening cause, produces injury. So the lawyer’s use of the phrase “proximate cause” may completely confuse the client.

The list could go on. Consider the difference between the lay and legal meanings of  perfection, facial, harmless, constructive, and many more. Lawyers move easily from the legal to the lay meanings of these and other words, without realizing that their clients do not follow. But even lawyers are often misled by the simple words shall, will, and may, whose diverse meanings fill pages of appellate decisions in Words & Phrases.

Dr. Gerald Stein has sent an article ("Closing in on Jargon," in Postgraduate Medicine) about a dermatologist who consulted a lawyer about buying a house. The lawyer’s legal jargon was so confusing to the doctor that in self-defense he responded with medical jargon. Noticing a small blemish on the lawyer’s neck, he suggested various possibilities–all in medical terminology. You’ll enjoy reading the article–unless you have a blemish on your neck.

Professional jargon is not new. In 1939, Attorney Fred Rodell, a lawyer, wrote, in “Woe Unto You, Lawyers”: “The Law is carried on in a foreign language. ... Law deals almost exclusively with the ordinary facts and occurrences of everyday business and government and living. But it deals with them in a jargon which completely baffles and befoozles the ordinary literate man.”

Those words are even truer today.

Gertrude Block is Lecturer Emerita at the University of Florida College of Law. Her book ,”Legal Writing Advice: Questions and Answers” (William S. Hein & Co., Inc.) was published in December 2004. Ms. Block is also author of “Effective Legal Writing”, 5th Edition (Foundation Press), with an accompanying instructor’s manual. She is co-author of the “Judicial Opinion Writing Manual” (published by the American Bar Association, 1991).  Send questions to the ISBA Bar News – Language Tips, Illinois State Bar Association, Illinois Bar Center, Springfield, IL 62701, or e-mail her at block@law.ufl.edu.