Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Avoiding acronyms and initials

An attorney wrote this, responding to a Ninth Circuit opinion criticizing overuse of acronyms and initials in environmental-law cases:

“If the [Ninth Circuit] wants attorneys to eschew the use of initials and acronyms in environmental cases, the judges ought to relax page limitations on briefs accordingly.”

I take a different view. I offer these approaches and recommend number 3, admitting that this example is oversimplified but believing that the principle applied in number 3 can work well for most initials and acronyms:

1. The Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) issued a policy statement on December 5, and the plaintiffs admit they knew about the policy. (R. at 4.) But even if the BLM had never issued a policy statement . . .
  • The Ninth Circuit apparently doesn't like this approach, especially when it multiplies the initials.
2. The Bureau of Land Management (“Bureau”) issued a policy statement on December 5, and the plaintiffs admit they knew about the policy. (R. at 4.) But even if the Bureau had never issued a policy statement . . .
  • This avoids the initials, so the Ninth Circuit would like this approach, I guess.
3. The Bureau of Land Management issued a policy statement on December 5, and the plaintiffs admit they knew about the policy. (R. at 4.) But even if the Bureau had never issued a policy statement . . .
  • If there is only one Bureau mentioned in the document, can't this work?

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home