It's not really a complete sentence. Apart from that, it would be more usual to use "corrupt", rather than corrupted", unless you were referring to a lawyer who had just been corrupted, and you wished to emphasise this.
It's not really a complete sentence. Apart from that, it would be more usual to use "corrupt", rather than corrupted", unless you were referring to a lawyer who had just been corrupted, and you wished to emphasise this.
I agree with your comment on the use of "corrupted" vs. "corrupt". But why do you feel that it is not a complete sentence? Perhaps you don't see that "that" refers or could refer to a specific lawyer, as in "that one" as opposed to "another one".
It's understandable as a sentence if it's in response to something like "What do you think might happen in the court case?" or "What's the worst thing that could happen to the papers in those archives?"
It's understandable as a sentence if it's in response to something like "What do you think might happen in the court case?" or "What's the worst thing that could happen to the papers in those archives?"
I was using "that" to identify a specific corrupt lawyer who is already known to both parties.
That man over there just stole my cake!
That corrupt lawyer might pass over the papers
That car nearly ran me over.
That girl who reads the news has very strange hair.
I was using "that" to identify a specific corrupt lawyer who is already known to both parties.
That man over there just stole my cake!
That corrupt lawyer might pass over the papers
That car nearly ran me over.
That girl who reads the news has very strange hair.