Alphabet Soup: Fine for Lunch but not for your Briefs

Lawyers love alphabet soup. We use abbreviations (which include initialisms and acronyms)[1] liberally. Take this excerpt as an example:

Facing the uncertainty of collecting from the Lewicki-Swiech Defendants, D&K turned to LL and KFTR, KBP’s prior counsel in this case. In February 2014, D&K’s counsel, now also representing the Polish bankruptcy trustee controlling KBP since April 2013 (See SA93-94 ¶10), asked LL for voluntary production of its documents relating to its representation of KBP in this lawsuit in 2011-12. LL complied. (See Dkt. 765 at 5.) KBP later also asked for and obtained documents from Dienner and KFTR, who had preceded LL as counsel for KBP.[2]

Lawyers in another case used the initialisms “‘SNF,’ ‘HLW,’ ‘NWF,’ ‘NWPA,’ and ‘BRC’” to refer to “‘spent nuclear fuel,’ ‘high-level radioactive waste,’ the ‘Nuclear Waste Fund,’ the ‘Nuclear Waste Policy Act,’ and the ‘Blue Ribbon Commission.’”[3] Well, those are “clear as mud,” as my dad would’ve said.

But I’m sure those abbreviations were clear to the people using them. That’s the problem. The lawyers and parties to a case live with and use abbreviations to talk about the case, perhaps for years.[4]  Those insiders readily understand the abbreviations. But you’re not writing your brief for an insider; you’re writing it for an outsider (judge) who reads thousands of pages of briefs each year. Using uncommon abbreviations makes the judge’s job more difficult and distracts from your argument. As one court noted in decrying the parties’ use of abbreviations, “The proliferation of these acronyms and abbreviations created a confusing alphabet soup which actively took the reader out of OSCO’s[5] arguments (at the expense of remembering what everything meant), and necessarily prolonged the Court’s review of the subject motions.”[6]

Some courts expressly discourage the use of uncommon abbreviations.[7] The Supreme Court of Ohio Writing Manual tells writers to “Avoid using acronyms and abbreviations that are not already widely used; instead, shorten the name of the entity.”[8] It then suggests, “after identifying the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky Car Dealers Association, provide a parenthetical such as (‘the car dealers’) rather than create the abbreviation ‘GCNKCDA.’”[9] Lawyers (and law professors) need to be aware of and comply with such suggestions. Failing to do so may result in a judge writing something like this:

Petitioner's brief, unfortunately, was laden with obscure acronyms notwithstanding the admonitions in our handbook (and on our website) to avoid uncommon acronyms. Since the brief was signed by a faculty member at Columbia Law School, that was rather dismaying both because of ignorance of our standards and because the practice constitutes lousy brief writing.[10]

At least two circuit courts of appeals now require parties to include a glossary that defines uncommon abbreviations. The Circuit Rules for the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has this requirement, “All briefs containing abbreviations, including acronyms, must provide a ‘Glossary’ defining each such abbreviation on a page immediately following the table of authorities. Abbreviations that are part of common usage need not be defined.”[11] But the very need to include a glossary suggests there is a problem with your writing—a problem that makes the judge’s job more difficult. Do you really want to write a brief that requires the judge to constantly flip back to a glossary to understand what you’re talking about? As Judge Silberman noted, “Even with a glossary, a judge finds himself or herself constantly looking back to recall what an acronym means.”[12]

A final point: a judge may view the overuse of abbreviations as a signal that the writer is unskilled.[13] One judge referring to the overuse of abbreviations, noted, “Perhaps not surprisingly, we never see that in a brief filed by well-skilled appellate specialists. It has been almost a marker, dividing the better lawyers from the rest.”[14]

So, save the alphabet soup for your lunch, not your brief.

 

[1] While all acronyms and initialisms are abbreviations, not all abbreviations are initialisms or acronyms.  See, Abbreviations, Bryan A. Garner, Modern English Usage, 2 (5th ed. 2022).

[2] Locke Lord Appellees’ Brief at 4, Domanus v. Locke Lord, LLP, 847 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2017) (No. 15-3647, ECF No. 31, 2016 WL 1072974.

[3] Nat’l Ass’n of Regul. Util. Comm’rs v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 680 F.3d 819, 820, n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

[4] Fed. Ct. App. Manual § 32:8 (7th ed.); Garner, supra note 2 at 4 (stating “Abbreviations are often conveniences for writers but inconveniences for readers.”)

[5] Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-6347, 2023 WL 5162655, *5, n.4. OSCO refers to OSCO Industries, Inc., id. at *1, which started as the Ohio Stove Company. https://oscoind.com/about-us/ (last visited March 4, 2025).

[6] Id. at *5, n.4.

[7] The Supreme Court of Ohio Writing Manual, 13.3 Identification, 105 (3d ed. 2024); Practitioner’s Handbook for Appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 153 (2020 ed.) (“Relatedly, the use of acronyms that are not widely known is discouraged.”)

[8] The Supreme Court of Ohio Writing Manual, 13.3 Identification, 105 (3d ed. 2024).

[9] Id. (I take issue with the need to include the parenthetical if there is only one set of car dealers involved in the case. I’d just refer to the entity as the car dealers after identifying the entity by its full name the first time. But perhaps that’s a topic for another blog post.)

[10] Delaware Riverkeepers Network v. F.E.R.C., 753 F.3d 1304, 1321 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Silberman, J. concurring).

[11] D.C. Cir. Rule 28(C)(3); 10th Cir. R. 28.2(C)(4).

[12] Delaware Riverkeepers Network, 753 F.3d at 1321 (Silberman, J. concurring).

[13] Id.

[14] Id.