“The game is not worth the candle.”

I once had a debate with a BigLaw partner over the expression, “The game is not worth the candle.” He wanted to include it in our federal, 4th Circuit brief.

I had never heard the saying before, and, after looking it up, I was even more sure it was too obscure for a brief. We didn’t want to sound pedantic (~snooty in a scholarly way), I pleaded with this partner.

👉 So here’s the origin and what it means:

When people relied on candles alone for light, candles were expensive, which made lighting a room after sundown a relative luxury.

“Not worth the candle” came to mean “not worth the cost of the candle”—such as the candle needed to play an evening card game or similar pastime.

Today, the expression today can refer to anything that is worthless, pointless, or not worth the time, effort, or expense involved.

⤵️

Back to the partner.

He strongly disagreed with me (which, of course, made me feel uneducated and stupid, although that was not his intent).

The phrase appeared in the version that went to the client.

It was there, however, that I got my redemption:
The client had my exact same reaction!

Result: “The game is not worth the candle” didn’t make the final cut.

But now I wonder. ❓ Should it have?

Since this incident, I’ve seen the expression in books* and court decisions**, but not yet ever in a brief—have you?

* See, e.g., Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, Making Your Case (2008) at 179:

“It’s helpful to refer to the judges by name when answering their questions—Judge Smith, Judge Jones, etc. The game is not worth the candle, however, if you’re no good at names and are liable to call Smith ‘Jones.’”

** A quick all-courts search on Google Scholar shows the expression appears in over 200 cases by different courts throughout the country.

🗳️ What’s your view? Would you use this expression in a brief?

Fondly,
💌 Amanda

P.S. See #DearLegalWriter for future letters.

P.P.S. In the 4th Circuit brief referenced above, we were responding to a plaintiff’s appeal from summary judgment.

In her opening brief, she’d spent four pages trying to explain something that the court had already judged immaterial—making her 4-page exercise a “game that was not worth the candle.”

#legalwriting
#lawyers
#lawstudents