This article throws down to argue that attorneys should not adopt the (cleaned up) life. To persuade you, Dear Reader, I must overcome authorities like Justice Thomas, Bryan Gardner, Prof. Eugene Volokh, and Mr. Metzler. I dare not do this alone. I call upon the rockstar visionaries before me who have highlighted (cleaned up)’s pitfalls. Together, we will influence you.
Hear our fight song.
♫
We’re here to write with wit and might
Our pens are sharp, our logic tight
Some are fooled, but (cleaned up)’s a mess
Our readers will yell, “This article’s the best!”
♫
II. Bluebook Rules and (Cleaned Up)
The (cleaned up) parenthetical spawned from frustration with the Bluebook. Under Bluebook Rule 1.5(a), the legal writer may use parentheticals, as needed, to bolster an argument by conveying substantive information or explaining the relevance of a particular authority. Rule 1.5(a) states “[p]arenthetical information is recommended when the relevance of a cited authority might not otherwise be clear to the reader.”
The (cleaned up) parenthetical is connected to the writer’s use of a double quote, or a quotation within a quotation. Legal writers seemingly love double quotes and cannot do without them. A well-executed double quote can reinforce the authority of the cited principle and demonstrate an argument’s solid foundation. A double quote can reliably show a depth of research and consistency in cited authority.
Bluebook Rule 10.6.2 states that “[w]hen a case cited as authority itself quotes . . . another case for that point, a ‘quoting’ . . . parenthetical is appropriate per rule 1.6(c).” Rule 1.6(c) states “[w]orks that the primary authority discusses, cites, or otherwise mentions, however, should be indicated parenthetically.” For example:
- Catherine T. Struve, Tribal Immunity and Tribal Courts, 36 Ariz. St. L. J. 137, 153 (2004) (“[T]he Constitution itself does not diminish tribal sovereign immunity — because ‘it would be absurd to suggest that the tribes surrendered immunity in a convention to which they were not even parties’ . . . .” (quoting Blatchford v. Native Vill. of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 782 (1991))).
Under Rule 10.6.2, if a case quotes a case, which itself quotes another case, only one level of “quoting” parenthetical is necessary.
(Cleaned up)’s beef is with Bluebook Rule 5.2, which allows alterations to quotations by using different letters or words, so long as the writer designates substitutions with brackets. Rule 5.2(a) permits changing a letter from upper to lower case, or vice versa. Rule 5.2(b) authorizes the omission of letters from a common root word. Rule 5.2(c) enables using “[sic]” after mistakes in the original.
Rule 5.2(d) specifies that, though the writer is free to alter a quotation in various ways, the writer must note changes in a parenthetical. Suppose the writer has made multiple distinct changes. In that case, the writer should include separate parentheticals noting each alternation, in this order: addition of emphasis, alternations to the original quoted text, omissions of citations, internal quotation marks, or footnote numbers. Rule 5.2(e) states that “[w]henever possible, a quotation within a quotation should be attributed to its original source. Insert a parenthetical following any parenthetical required by rule 5.2(d):
- Chief Judge Skelly Wright noted Congress’s “firm resolve to insure that the CIA’s ‘power that flows from money and stealth’ could not be turned loose in domestic investigations of Americans.” Marks v. CIA, 590 F.2d 997, 1008 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (Wright, C.)., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added) (quoting Weissman v. CIA, 565 F.2d 692, 695 (D.C. Cir. 1977)).”
(Cleaned up) supporters contend that compliance with Rule 5.2 is too cumbersome and that adding brackets and quotations inhibits readability. Mr. Metzler proposed that “all legal writers adopt the parenthetical (cleaned up) . . . [to] indicate[] that in quoting a court’s decision the author—
- has removed extraneous, non-substantive material like brackets, quotation marks, ellipses, footnote reference numbers, and internal citations;
- may have changed capitalization without using brackets to indicate that change; and
- affirmatively represents that the alterations were made solely to enhance readability and that the quotation otherwise faithfully reproduces the quoted text.”
III. Attorneys Should Not Use (Cleaned Up)
A. (Cleaned Up) Does Not Improve Readability
1. The (cleaned up) parenthetical lacks consistency and accuracy.
Get ready to make some noise! Up first, with sincere appreciation, we present Adam Eakman’s article “Why attorneys should stop using ‘(cleaned up).’” Thank you Mr. Eakman for serving as the legal community’s north star and cracking the (cleaned up) code back in 2018.
The best lawyers adapt their writing to their audience. In the quest to be readable, attorneys aim to write their arguments to be persuasive after only one read by the judge. Generally, the term “readability” means: “the sum total (including the interactions) of all those elements within a given piece of printed material that affect the success a group of readers have with it. The success is the extent to which they understand it, read it at an optimal speed, and find it interesting.”
Despite claims to the contrary, experience shows there is no static definition of (cleaned up). How much cleaning was done exactly? Which part of the original was supposedly dirty? Was it the brackets, quotations, ellipsis, all the above, or some combination thereof? Is emphasis in or out? What did Mr. Metzler mean by “etc.” in his formational tweet? What did he mean when he said the writer “may have changed capitalization?” These questions don’t have answers. Examples of (cleaned up) found in the wild are usually misused, including by Mr. Metzler and Justice Thomas. The reader must do extra work to confirm what the court said, which “defeats the purpose of quoting material in the first place.”
Mr. Eakman won over the Missouri Court of Appeals, which “urge[s] advocates to avoid using (cleaned up) in the briefs they submit to this Court.” “We agree that detailing all the alterations made to a quotation in a brief impairs readability. The solution to this problem is not ‘(cleaned up).’”
[W]e urge advocates, for whom credibility and accuracy are essential in order to carry their burden of persuasion, to avoid the use of “(cleaned up).” Courts frequently need to know the precise language being used in a case or statute and are experienced at comprehending non-cleaned up legal language. The use of the phrase “(cleaned up)” creates a solution for a problem that does not exist and, in doing so, can have the unintended effect of damaging the persuasiveness of the advocate’s position.
The D.C. Court of Appeals has outlawed (cleaned up). The court’s citation and style guide states “Do NOT use ‘(cleaned up)’.” “‘(Cleaned up)’ does not comply with The Bluebook and necessarily omits all relevant citation information.” (Instead of (cleaned up), the Iowa Court of Appeals uses “(altered for readability).” The Utah Court of Appeals uses “(quotation simplified).”)
2. The (cleaned up) parenthetical fails as a writing tool.
Our next author asked me to write this. If you want to have your socks rocked off, keep reading. Coming to the stage, bringing the fire, the irresistible David Foster Wallace, whose insights challenge the legal writing community to consider the implications of (cleaned up). Mr. Wallace teaches that assessing (cleaned up) involves “trying to trace out the very weird and complicated relationship between Authority and Democracy in that we as a culture have decided is English.” The way we use English is analogous to fashion and etiquette. Suppose Mr. Metzler got (cleaned up) tattooed on his neck. Like with the pretentious parenthetical, one might say Mr. Metzler is “Making a Statement.” To whom? To whichever group the reader belongs and whether Mr. Metzler wants acceptance as a fellow community member.
Not everyone is gaga. Charles Percy Snow argued in The Two Cultures that insisting on culture clash can alienate the other. On the readability front, the writer should “avoid distracting any readers.” If you are the Missouri Court of Appeals, “these solecisms require at least a couple extra nanoseconds of cognitive effort, a kind of rapid sift-and-discard process; before the recipient gets it’. Extra work. It’s debatable just how much extra work, but it seems indisputable that we put some extra neural burden on the recipient when we fail to follow certain conventions.”
“[A] guide to good writing is only as good as the principles on which it’s based.” Let’s break down (cleaned up).
Dedicated legal citation scholar and gifted person Alexa Z. Chew explains that “[i]f legal writing essentially consists of ‘claims supported by reasons,’ then legal citations are part of ‘the reasons.’” Chief purposes for a legal citation are (1) to locate the cited source and (2) to communicate information to the reader about the cited source. Ms. Chew argues, because legal citations mainly help readers discern meaning, the communicative purpose is paramount, with credibility largely dependent on communication consequences. A legal citation reader has certain expectations. “Without the conviction that citations are trying to communicate useful information, readers can be distracted by a citation’s ‘deviant’ appearance and think, ‘this doesn’t look right.’”
Based on the principles Ms. Chew sets forth, (cleaned up) qualifies as a “bumpy citation” and “thought-interrupter.” Bumpiness “results from a failure to fully integrate the information conveyed by the citation with the information conveyed by the surrounding prose.” “For readers, the bumpy citation problem manifests mainly as an unpleasant experience during which the citations gradually deplete the reader’s energy and attention.”
“[A]n ill-conceived or improperly placed parenthetical can disrupt the flow of an argument or impair the reader’s understanding of your text.” “Parentheticals can provide an efficient means of communicating basic information about a source. However, parentheticals do not explain the relationship of the law to your set of facts as effectively as express legal analysis and may even detract from your central point.” “The reader may think you have something to hide or are simply trying to impress her by using overly formal, wordy, and obscure language. Do not make the decisionmaker’s job more difficult by forcing her to grab a dictionary to understand what you are trying to say.”
(Cleaned up) does not inform the reader of the changes the writer has made to the citation. Compare parentheticals like (emphasis supplied) or (citations omitted). “By lumping a number of different types of edits to a quotation into one short parenthetical, (cleaned up) forgoes opportunities to communicate valuable information to the legal reader about changes underfoot.” “It is up to the reader to dig in and decipher the sweeping, the cleaned up backstory and all of its interminable unknowns.” (Cleaned up) is about the writer.
Ms. Chew coined this “the presumptuous citation problem,” which “occurs when writers rely on citations to communicate information about the cited authority that readers expect to see in the prose.” “When the writer sees the citation, she knows what the cited authority said because she is familiar with it, and she knows how it fits in with the surrounding prose because she wrote it. But from the reader’s perspective, key information is missing. The reader hasn’t necessarily read the cited authority nor is it likely she can recall whatever portions the writer thinks are important.”
Ms. Chew teaches that legal citations are part of the substance. Mr. Metzler’s claim that (cleaned up) does not alter substance lacks evidentiary support. The claim that (cleaned up) improves readability by removing brackets and quotations rests on a logical fallacy: the fallacy of the inverse. In this instance of the fallacy, removing clutter does not necessarily establish that readability has been improved. At least each piece of clutter in the original has a defined purpose and meaning under the Bluebook. The minor benefits of removing clutter are outweighed by the negative impacts on readability caused by inserting a presumptuous parenthetical. Legal readers see that (cleaned up) raises a red flag.
B. (Cleaned Up) Does Not Make a Legal Writer Credible
1. The (cleaned up) parenthetical is braggadocious.
Prodigy Adam T. Johnson knows (cleaned up) as “a contemporary invention ex diabolus, an agent of confusion, a damned quixotic catastrophe noxiously heaped upon the American bar by the phantom exigencies claimed by Generation Infinite Scroll.” In his impassioned takedown, Mr. Johnson recognized that (cleaned up) “boasts of getting rid of ‘clutter.’” “And last I checked, Mr. Metzler was personally sending ‘legal writing hero’ awards to anyone who would send him their brief or opinion using (cleaned up), with promises of ‘internet fame and Twitter plaudits.’”
(Cleaned up) stinks. Pomposity reveals weakness. Cicero instructed that advocates establish credibility by adopting “‘a mild tone, a countenance expressive of modesty, [and] gentle language.’” A credible advocate should carefully consider the impact of words on the reader. “The relationship between writer and reader is where credibility comes to life.” “[E]thos is constructed through exchanges between reader and writer.” (Cleaned up)-ers seem not to get that the reader is looking for a combination of rigor and humility. (Cleaned up) offers neither, and instead represents magical thinking. “[T]he writer simply adds (cleaned up), and poof! All responsibility for precision and accuracy disappears.”
(Cleaned up) attempts to assert credibility, but the writer’s self-praise fails because it is done in a way that patronizes precedent. (Cleaned up) gives legal writers a misguided confidence and false sense of security as if the parenthetical is a key to sophisticated legal writing. Reality check. No judge ever thought to herself, “The arguments in this brief are not making sense. . . Wait. He used (cleaned up)? That is one credible crackerjack!”
And that is the end of that chapter.
IV. Call To Action
Now it’s your turn to be the writer. Let your voice be heard. Have ideas about creating your own parenthetical? I propose (level breaker), (another court did it), and (not as bad as it sounds). Send an email or letter to let us know where you stand. This article is intended to be and should be taken as legal advice. For more fun legal content, check out my YouTube channel. Like, Comment, Subscribe. Do not use (cleaned up).