Today we discuss a particular form of tedious detail that should be avoided in your legal writing: over-explaining names. In his judicial style sheet, Judge Thomas Gibbs Gee (who served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 1973 to 1991) admonished, "No overparticularization, which can throw your reader off by causing him to try to keep track of things that do not matter." A Few of Wisdom's Idiosyncrasies and a Few of Ignorance's, 1 Scribe's Legal Writing 55, 57 (1990). Over-explaining names has two problems: it injects unnecessary facts, and it defines the obvious.
So if a shorthand name isn't necessary to understanding the issues and if there is no danger that the reader will be confused without it, then don't put it in a parenthetical, e.g.:
Correct:
In this lawsuit, plaintiff Philip Marlowe asserts an unfair competition claim against his former partner, defendant Sam Spade. Spade's summary judgment motion should be granted, and Marlow's claim dismissed, for three reasons. First, because Spade did not . . .
Incorrect:
In this lawsuit, plaintiff Philip Marlowe ("Marlowe") asserts an unfair competition claim ("Claim") against his former partner, defendant Sam Spade ("Spade"). Spade's summary judgment motion ("Motion") should be granted, and Marlowe's Claim dismissed, for three reasons. First, because Spade did not . . .
That is all for now ...
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
