I start this blog not with a post about law, but about a legally-inspired quibble about plurals. More particularly, ignorant ones.
Let me begin with the plural of the word "subpoena". It is NOT subpoenae. "Subpoenae" is not a word that exists in Latin. Indeed, the singular form subpoena is also not a word in Latin. Rather, it is the anglicised form of the adverbial sub poena meaning "under penalty", either to attend to give evidence (sub poena ad testificandum) or to produce documents (sub poena duces tecum). Originally the noun to which the Latin description sub poena attached was the writ but at least by the time of the District Courts Act in NSW it was simply referred to as a subpoena. Thankfully, the legislators had been properly schooled and referred to the plural as "subpoenas". In older law reports the "oe" is printed as a ligature, even when used in its anglicised form.
In short, use of the plural "subpoenae" is either pretentious affectation, or ignorant hypercorrection.
Speaking of ignorant hypercorrection, in English the plural of "ignoramus" is "ingoramuses"...in Latin it is a verb and not a noun, and so the affected "ignorami" is simply ungrammatical.
As for "octopus", as the word is derived from the Greek and not the Latin, the plural is usually "octopuses" or, if one insisted upon a native-language plural, it would be "octopodes". In any event, even if it were Latin it would not be "octopi" as the word is a third and not a second declension noun in Latin.
As for the wide range of "forae" in which one NZ lawyer apparently has developed expertise (perhaps explained by the fact he spells his first name "Jaesen"), one wonders what sort of "apparati" he uses when representing "cestuis que trustent" seeking the "nexi" between the losses of the "ignorami" and the "prospecti".