Some common problems in legal writing, a series--part 5: Defined terms, initials, acronyms
Imagine that you are writing a document and that you'll be using the following names:
The Texas Seed Arbitration Act
Austin National Bank
Farm Enterprises Service Company
Roger T. Howard
Leticia Howard
The traditional conventions of legal writing would have you write an opening paragraph like this:
This lawsuit was initiated by Roger T. Howard (hereinafter "Howard") and Leticia Howard (hereinafter "Leticia" and, together with Howard, the "Plaintiffs” or “Howards") against Austin National Bank (hereinafter "ANB") and Farm Enterprises Service Company (hereinafter "FESCO") for injunctive relief under the Texas Seed Arbitration Act (hereinafter “TSAA").
We've all seen writing like this. I think it's poor. Here's my advice.Howard and Leticia assert that FESCO violated the provisions of the TSAA when FESCO refused to replace allegedly defective seed. Plaintiffs also assert that FESCO's lender, ANB, pressured FESCO to refuse to replace the seed, and the Howards have asserted claims against ANB as well.
- An opening paragraph cluttered with distracting defined terms is a poor way to begin any document.
- You do not need to use the word "hereinafter" to create defined terms. Every expert who has commented on the subject agrees.
- You probably do not need the quotation marks. This is a fine point, but professional writing outside the law does not require quotation marks.
- Creating a defined term with alternatives, like this: ("Plaintiffs" or "Howards") is lazy. You are saying to your reader "I won't be careful enough to be consistent. I might use either one."
- You may not need to define terms at all. Specifically:
- If there is only one person named Howard in the document, give the full name on first reference and shorten to Howard on later references without defining it.
- If there are multiple Howards in the document, give full names on first reference and use first names on later references without defining them.
- If there is only one statutory act in the document, give its full name on first reference and shorten it to "Act" in later references.
- If there are multiple statutory acts in the document, you can shorten to readable, pronounceable names, like Seed Act or Seed Arbitration Act without defining it.
- Generally, don't invent your own initials. Use well-recognized initials (NCAA, CBS, etc.); otherwise, use words. When you use invented initials, you save yourself time, but you make the reader work harder.
- Generally, don't invent acronyms. Use well-recognized acronyms (CERCLA, ERISA, etc.); otherwise, use words. What's so wrong with calling something by its full name?
This lawsuit was initiated by Roger T. Howard and Leticia Howard against Austin National Bank and Farm Enterprises Service Company for injunctive relief under the Texas Seed Arbitration Act.
Roger and Leticia assert that Farm Enterprises violated the provisions of the Act when it refused to replace allegedly defective seed. The Howards also assert that Farm Enterprises' lender, Austin National Bank, pressured Farm Enterprises to refuse to replace the seed, and the Howards have asserted claims against the bank as well.
Wayne Schiess
Director of Legal Writing | The University of Texas School of Law | Website | Seminars | Articles | Books: Preparing Legal Documents Nonlawyers Can Read and Understand
| Better Legal Writing
| Writing for the Legal Audience
| The Legal Memo: A Basic Guide
When you write "Howard and Leticia" you're using "Howard" to refer, I think, to "Roger." What about "The Howards assert that Farm Enterprises...."
Wayne says:
You're right, of course. I made a mistake and have corrected it now. Thank you.
Reply to this
Is it too informal to refer to the plaintiffs by their first names only?
Wayne says:
I think it is okay.
Reply to this
With all due respect, I think you should reconsider your suggested revision.
Wayne says:
All right. I will re-consider it. Can you suggest how it could be improved?
Reply to this
It's possible--in fact quite probable--that I'm just being an inscrutable dick here. But props to you for publishing my gripe.
Part of it is just stylistic--I don't really like the passive voice.
As to form/usage, though I agree with you on party names vs. labels, I think it's unwieldy here. And I think it's ambiguous whether the Howards' penultimate (boy, never thought I'd have occasion to actually use that word) assertion re Austin National is merely factual or if it's an actionable COA related to the clause that follows.
For better or for worse, here's how I'd write it:
Plaintiffs Roger and Leticia Howard sued Defendants Austin National Bank and Farm Enterprises Service Co. for an injunction under the Texas Seed Arbitration Act when Farm Enterprises--buckling under Austin's pressure-- refused to replace allegedly defective seed.
Wayne says:
I see. Of course, your revision is excellent. Thank you. My revision was attempting to show that you do not need to use defined names, initials, and acronyms--nothing more. I otherwise left it as it had been. You made several other changes. Well done.
Reply to this