The Bench & Bar magazine is published to provide members of the KBA with information that will increase their knowledge of the law, improve the practice of law, and assist in improving the quality of legal services for the citizenry.
Issue link: https://kentuckybenchandbar.epubxp.com/i/450788
17 B&B; • 1.15 E F F E C T I V E L E G A L W R I T I N G NIX THE ACRONYMS By: Judith D. Fischer 1 Not long ago, the Ninth Circuit sardonically listed a string of acronyms that lawyers had used in a case. Then the court said it would ignore most of them and write its opinion "in plain English." 2 Other courts have also expressed displeasure with acronyms. One dismissed a complaint partly because it was loaded with confusing acronyms, including "'SOP,' 'OPM,' 'NALC,' 'NRLCA,' 'CCM' and 'CCR.'" 3 And the D.C. Circuit chastised a set of lawyers for "abandon[ing] any attempt to write in plain English, instead abbreviating every conceivable agency and statute involved, familiar or not . . . ." 4 An acronym is composed of the initial letters or parts of a name that can be spoken as a single word. An example is the acronym for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which is pronounced as a single word, NASA. An initialism is composed of initials that do not form a word but are pronounced letter by letter, as with FBI for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some writers refer to both kinds of abbreviations collec- tively as acronyms, which I will do here. Why do courts dislike acronyms? As one court stated, although parties may use them among themselves, the shortened forms "are not an effective means of communicating with the Court." 5 Instead, they make communication more difficult. 6 Particularly where many acronyms appear in a short space, the writing becomes dense and impenetrable. And in a longer document, acronyms require the court to memorize new terms or page through the document to figure out what the sets of letters mean. The D.C. Circuit has even codified a provision against them: "In briefs, the use of acronyms other than those that are widely known should be avoided." 7 This example illustrates how acronyms can impede communication: The parents alleged that their child was denied a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under the In- dividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because the Department of Education (DOE) had provided an inadequate individualized learning plan (ILP). The State Review Officer (SRO) found that the DOE's plan complied with IDEA, and the parents appealed. The court held for the DOE, agreeing with the SRO's finding that the DOE's ILP provided the stu- dent with a FAPE. Even though some of these acronyms are common in student disability cases, generalist judges may not be familiar with them. And a lawyer who packs so many of them into a short space creates awkward and frustrating prose. The example's final sentence degenerates into near incomprehensibility. Why do some lawyers write like this? Perhaps they want to seem like insiders who know a special language. Or they may think acronyms are more convenient. But that's short-sighted. Lawyers who are trying to convince a court should consider the court's convenience, not their own. It may be mildly easier to type "SRO" than "State Review Officer," but the acronym is harder, not easier, for the court to read and understand. Here are some guidelines for acronyms. Instead of using an acronym, • consider whether a term can be shortened into one understandable word. In the example above, it would be clear to call the Individualized Learn- ing Plan "the plan" and the Depart- ment of Education "the department." Consider using the full term. While • FAPE is a common acronym in student disability cases, using the full phrase would make the above passage more readable. Avoid using an acronym if you need • not repeat the term at all. The above example can be edited to use "State Review Officer" only once, eliminating the need for yet another cumbersome set of initials. Carefully choose one or two terms • that can profitably be shortened. IDEA might be that term in the above example, because the full phrase is un- wieldy and the acronym is commonly used in student disability cases. The prior referenced passage might be edited to read like this: The parents alleged that their child was denied a free and appropriate public education under the Individu- als with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) because the Department of Education had provided an inade- quate individualized learning plan. The State Review Officer found that the department's plan complied with IDEA, and the parents appealed. The court held for the department, agree- ing that the plan provided the stu- dent with a free and appropriate public education. In urging lawyers to limit the use of acronyms, the D.C. Circuit recently quoted George Orwell: "[W]ritten English is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble." 8 A lawyer who wants to communicate effectively should take the necessary trouble to edit a daunting alphabet soup into understand- able English. 1 J udith D. Fischer is a professor at the University of Louisville's Brandeis School of Law. She teaches L egal Writing and Women and the Law. 2 N. Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, 503 F.3d 836, 839 n .1 (9th Cir. 2007). 3 U .S. ex rel. Fowler v. Caremark RX, Inc., No. Civ. A. 03C8714, 2006 WL 2425331 at *3 n.1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2006). 4 N at'l Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Comm'rs v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 680 F.3d 819, 820 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 5 Waveland Capital Partners, LLC, v. Tommerup, 8 40 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1244 (D. Mont. 2012). 6 Gagliano & Co., Inc., v. Openfirst, LLC, 828 N .W.2d 268, 271 n.2 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013), rev'd in part on other grounds (Wis. July 15, 2014). 7 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Handbook of Practice and Internal Pro- c edures 41 (Nov. 12, 2013), www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Con- tent/VL%20-%20RPP%20- % 20Handbook%202006%20Rev%202007/$FILE/H andbookNovember2013WITHTOCLINKS22.pdf. 8 N at'l Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Comm'rs v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 680 F.3d at 820 n.1 (2012) (quot- ing George Orwell, Politics and the English Lan- guage, 13 Horizon 76 (1946)). H E I R S L L O C A T E D NO FEE TO THE ESTATE Established 1960 T E L 800 443 9004 FAX 615 822 9316 www.tracerusa.com Box 182 Madison, TN 37116-0182 ®