Last week's tip discussed the tedious practice of over-explaining shorthand names. It inspired a spirited discussion; so let's go a bit further; how often have you seen clunky sentences like this:
Defendant Nike, Inc. (hereinafter "Nike") moves for summary judgment against all claims brought by plaintiff Joe Public (hereinafter "plaintiff").
Ugh. Is it really necessary to tell the reader that future references to "Nike" mean "Nike, Inc." and future references to "plaintiff" mean the plaintiff? Probably not. A reader of average intelligence understands that without the obligatory defining parentheticals. So these parentheticals serve no purpose other than to clog the sentence and interfere with the writer's message. No rule of grammar or good sense mandates using such defining parentheticals either, so omit them where the shortened form is obvious.
But sometimes the shortened form isn't obvious. In those instances, the defining parenthetical is a useful to the reader. Here are a couple examples of defining parentheticals that are helpful:
- This case arises from plaintiff's claims against Monopoly, Inc. and its board of directors (collectively "Monopoly").
- This is a products liability action against Fred Meyer, Inc. ("Seller") and Zippo ("Manufacturer").
Finally, always leave out the "hereinafter." The reader understands the purpose of a defining parenthetical. Remember, our goal is to get to the point rather than to obstruct it; putting clunky obstacles in the reader's path interferes with achieving that goal.
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.
