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.
- This avoids the initials, so the Ninth Circuit would like this approach, I guess.
- If there is only one Bureau mentioned in the document, can't this work?