Dear Legal Writer ("DLW"): This is a post ("Post") about a pesky habit ("Habit") I see in most litigators (“Litigators”).

The Habit: sticking a word in quotation marks, then stuffing it in parentheses (hereinafter, a "Parenthetical").

Once you start suffering from this Habit, you can't stop, which is a condition I call can’t-stop-itis ("Can't-Stop-Itis").

——Exhibit A ("Exhibit A")——

Plaintiff Bill Smith ("Smith") sues Defendant ABC Corp. ("ABC" or "Defendant" or, collectively with Smith, the "Parties").
⬇️

There is one Smith.

There is one ABC.

Nobody ("Nobody") is confused.

And yet here we are, three definitions deep, before the first real sentence.

Now listen: I do get it. In a 40-page contract, defined terms save you from retyping "Widget Manufacturing and Distribution, LLC" 200 times. That's a fair reason.

But somewhere along the way, litigators took that contract habit and dragged it into memos, and briefs, and motion, and they never looked back.

Now everything gets a defined term. Everything. Even one plaintiff. Even one defendant. Even when no human on Earth would confuse "ABC" with anything else.

And making things worse still, I constantly see this:

▪️ "The response to ABC Corp.'s ("ABC") motion is due on [date]."

Sit with that for a second.

That sentence just defined "ABC Corp.'s" (the possessive form of ABC) as "ABC."

Which means, going forward, "ABC" technically means "ABC Corp.'s." Not ABC Corp.

But we are a profession built on precision, and we just defined a word by accident—using a form of it we didn't mean.

Your reader will sort it out, sure, but that’s not the point.

Morals of the story:

Define less.
Define right.
Or skip the definitions altogether.
Don’t worry: all will sleep fine at night.

💌 Amanda

#DearLegalWriter