|
This
column addresses some miscellany. Long-time
readers will note that the references to the
"rules" refer to those in The Legal
Writer 2nd Ed.: 40 Rules for the Art of Legal
Writing. These were discussed in detail in
previous columns. If you missed the earlier
installments, there is info on how to buy the
book at the end of this installment.
A
Rule Against Apostrophes?
Did
someone ban contractions from legal writing? Is
there a rule against apostrophes? Did we learn
that one right after the rule against
perpetuities? (An apostrophe in being, plus …)
Writing is it not likely instead of isn't
it likely just sounds stuffy. If you prefer cannot
for can't, I won't argue, but
generally use the contraction if it sounds
natural. And yes, sometimes the formal can
supply slightly more emphasis. Write with your
ear, as well as your eye and your brain.
The
apostrophe is unjustly maligned. Avoiding
apostrophes results in clumsy constructions. It
also adds to the word count, by adding clutter.
The apostrophe is a useful tool. Use it.
In
addition to contractions, some writers seem to
think possessives are banned. Lawyers write the
docket of the court instead of the
court's docket (see Rule 23 - Always
Question "Of"). Use the possessive
with the apostrophe, not the longer and more
pompous of construction.
Fun
With Numbers
The
general rule is to spell out numbers one through
ten. You should then use numerals for 11 and
above.
Some
authorities do have different rules. For
example, The Chicago Manual of Style
(15th ed. 2003), favors spelling out numbers up
to one hundred.
But
Bryan Garner's Modern American Usage
(2003) specifies the one-to-ten rule, as does
his Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2nd
ed. 1995). That rule is better for legal
writing.
As
with most rules, there are exceptions. If a
number begins a sentence, it is spelled out,
though it is often better to recast the
sentence. "Nineteen ninety-nine will be
remembered for …" would be much
better as "We will remember 1999 for
…"
Another
hint: leave out the double zeros after a
decimal. Write $200, not $200.00. And substitute
words for rows of zeros where possible. Write $2
million, $5 billion. For percentages,
use the percent sign (%).
And
remember Rule 6 - No Parenthetical Numericals.
Never clutter your document with both words and
numbers: "There were four (4) plaintiffs
and six (6) defendants." Never.
Useless
And Distracting Stuff
"Now
comes the plaintiff [where?], by and
through the undersigned attorney, and moves this
honorable court to grant summary judgment."
Does
that convey any meaning at all? Of course not -
it's just legal nonsense. But we litter our
legal documents and pleadings with it. Delete
it. Just write "Jones moves for summary
judgment." Unless, of course, the honor
of the court is actually in question.
"Know
all men by these presents."
What
does that mean? I always think I am going to get
a present.
"To
all to whom these presents shall come,
greeting."
This
nonsense is on all of my certificates of
election. These quaint documents are a veritable
litany of banned words: know ye, aforesaid,
said, in witness whereof, and even in pursuance
of, which is even worse than pursuant to.
Gosh.
"Further
affiant sayeth naught."
This
is Elizabethan Middle-English, still sometimes
appearing in affidavits. But in the real world,
the -th has long since been replaced by -s,
or by nothing. We write he says, not sayeth.
We make love, not maketh love. See
Bryan Garner's comment on this anachronism:
"When the affiant hath nothing further to
say, the affiant generally stoppeth
testifying."
And
is it naught or not? The former
makes more grammatical sense, but, says Garner,
"the best choice is … to use these
phrases not."
Too
Many Dates
Lawyers
and judges use too many dates (See Rule 5 -
Avoid Overchronicling - Most Dates Are Clutter).
Using an exact date signals that it is important
- that the reader should remember it for future
reference. If that's not your intention, strike
it out.
You
can convey continuity and order by clues like next
and later. Or use "in June,"
then "in July" to show
chronological order.
When
using month-day-year style, there is a comma
before and after the year - "the
ceremony of June 26, 2003, was festive." In
the day-month-year style (more prevalent in
Commonwealth and European writing), there is no
comma - "the ceremony of 26 June 2003
was festive." And remember that when
not using an exact date, there is no comma
between the month and year: "in June
2003."
In
referring to decades, do not use an apostrophe -
"during the 1980s" not "1980's."
Technically, either is acceptable; but the
modern rule, which produces cleaner looking
text, is to leave out the apostrophe.
Uncommon
Comma Considerations
Commas
do not surround Jr., Sr., III, Inc., LLP,
Ltd., and the like. Just write, "John
Smith Jr. is president of Minoliana Inc." In
parenthetical material, a comma never precedes a
closing parenthesis, but may follow it. "When
in Rome (where I went last year), be sure to see
the Pantheon." A comma is used to set
off a state or country: "Peoria,
Illinois, is her home."
Cross
Out Cross-References
Last
month I received an email with this question:
Where do you use supra and infra?
My short answer is - nowhere. Nor should you use
op. cit. or loc. cit.
These
cross-reference indicators are distracting and
unnecessary in most legal writing. They abound
in law reviews, so new lawyers tend to believe
they are acceptable, even desirable. If you want
your brief or memo to be just as unreadable -
and unread - as most law reviews, then litter it
with supras and infras.
When
you use an infra, you are saying to the reader
"I'm going to tell you about this
later." That's just silly - if
something is relevant now, talk about it now,
not later.
Footnotes
are for citation only (See Rule 13 - Citations
Go in Footnotes). So any supra or infra would
automatically be in a footnote. But instead of
using a supra to indicate you have cited
something just a footnote or two earlier (if it
is in the last footnote, it would be Id.), it's
more convenient for the reader if you just
repeat the cite.
|
