Does that mean you shouldn't use contractions during oral argument? Wouldn't that also degrade Scalia's court to that of the common folk. Lawyers should really talk and write in a way that only other lawyers can understand; that way people will need to come to us more and more. I don't understand why Scalia should be so angered because we write like we speak, don't we read like we speak?

Scalia is totally right. Using contractions in legal writing is like wearing jeans to the office.

Agree with the first commentator -- the irrational hatred of contractions should cause you to think twice before using them.

That said, I think using contractions is good. I think it improves the "flow" of the sentence, making it easier to read. It also makes writings shorter. Most people don't have a problem with avoiding excess words in other scenarios; what's the fuss about here?

And please, don't tell me it makes writing seem less formal or distinguished. If you're one of those people, you probably love legalese and old English texts that use "thee" and "thou" frequently. Go put on a tuxedo and sip some brandy while the rest of us work.

Can't stand them. ;)

They look unpolished and sloppy.

And I agree with the first poster. I notice them, just like I notice split infinitives. If some underpaid first year government lawyer notices them, you can bet at least a few judges do too.

1:02(2) What's your point?

- Mark Cuban

Contractions in legal writing will be acceptable the day contractions are used in federal statutes.

They don't bother me as much as a lawyer refers to her client in a brief as "we," as if the lawyer and the client are the litigants.

"[A]n affront to the dignity of the court"? Scalia needs to take the stick out of his ass. It's an apostrophe and an omitted letter or two. Nino...if you read this (and yes, Antonin, I know you read this blog!), get over yourself!

Of the 13% that are pro-contraction, I would like to know if any of them were on law review. I'm betting a correlation exists between not getting the significance of polished writing and not being trained to edit and weed out unpolished writing.

Generally I would agree that they should be avoided in legal writing, though they could be helpful in reducing your word count on an appeal brief if you absolutely cannot trim fat elsewhere.

I agree that, whether it's appropriate or not, use of contractions can make your writing stand out in a negative fashion, so it's better to avoid them. Besides, it doesn't improve readability that much, if at all.

Whatever it takes to get me under the character limit.

"Attorney if person has an IQ above 90; lawyer if below."

Q: What do you call an attorney with an IQ of 50?

A: Your Honor

Lol at the fact that Latman has removed any reference to SEN (what was her name again?). Click on the link to the past random Friday polls and scoll to the one about the pronunciation of "substantive."

SEN = "She who shall not be named"

Using contractions prevents global warming - one less letter used means less ink, which means less carbon used etc, etc.

Make a contraction and save the planet!

CAN WE PLEASE ALSO ANSWER THIS:

What does "it's" mean? I have always argued it can only mean "it is" because the apostrophe elides the "i" in "is." But I have seen "it's" being used for "it has" ... and have grown angry.

Another example is "I'd" or "he'd" - is it "he had" or "he would," or both?

LOL @ superdouche 1:24 for noticing something that stupid.

what's a contraction?

1:26 = SEN

SEN's byline ("Sharon Nichols") shows up when I look at the old polls.

I'm positive contractions aren't good.

1:24 here - the post was a joke.

Contractions should never be used in formal writing, as far as I'm concerned.... and when I'm trying to convince a judge, you better believe I'm going to be formal. However, I would like to read a copy of this movie-title laden opinion of Kozinski's! Does anyone know where to find it?

1:25: It's both. Derive the precise meaning from the contextual use.

The fact that this is even a topic of discussion is further evidence of why I hate our profession and most people in our profession.

tis won't to be a contraction
wasn't it a fraction

1:42 - Please go die in a grease fire.

1:16-

What's not "polished" about using a contraction? If I absolutely intend to use one, because I think it improves the readability of my work, why does this reflect a lack of "polish?"

In other words, your argument is question begging. Why do contractions reflect a lack of polish? I'm assuming your answer is: "because they are bad." Or perhaps you'll use another word like "sloppy." Either way, you're not making a substantive argument; you're just assuming its not appropriate to use contractions.

Two other notes:
1. Yes, I was on a journal. I did quite a bit of editing. I don't want my published work to contain errors (be they grammatical errors or typos).
2. Minutes wasted writing this post: 6.

Judge Kozinski uses contractions.

Judge Kozinski is God.

Therefore, contractions are okay with God.

I don't like contractions.

I haven't used contractions in anything graded since the third grade. And when you file something with the court, it's certainly graded, just on a whole new level.

I generally don't use contraction in formal writing with one exception: "What's more." It's a powerful transition and the power is lost by saying "What is more."

If you Westlaw search it in the "supreme court" database you will see that it has been used quite a few times, mostly by Stevens, if I remember correctly.

Eugene Volokh uses contractions in his law review articles. Editors try to make him change, but he wins the battle.

I used a lot of contradictions on my legal writing brief. I got a C.

"Formality bespeaks dignity" ... what a douchebag.

EV is a Kozinski disciple. That doesn't make either of them right. 2:04-- I agree that "what is more" sounds bad, but I think the problem can be avoided by saying "moreover."

It is not proper in any writing, excluding quotations, to use contractions.

1:02 (2): I'm at quinn, jeans are great. We don't use contractions unless we're posting on ATL. Or quoting a case.

1:36(3),
Kozinski's movie opinion: http://notabug.com/kozinski/syufyrosetta.pdf

What's wrong with wearing jeans to work?

1:16: I was on law review. I never edited out an author's use of contractions. There's just nothing wrong with them, just as there's nothing wrong with starting sentences with "but" and "and," and so forth.

Yet Scalia makes a good point, and I think that this contraction debate highlights why Garner just isn't (or hasn't) made as big of a splash in legal writing as many think. Examples are the way that he writes issue statements, and his placing of all citations in footnotes. They make sense, but many legal writers will disregard them because they just don't jive with the way that lawyers and judges have been writing for years and years and years.

Garner gave a seminar at my firm last summer. He challenges all transactional lawyers to cease to use the word "shall" in their contracts, because the word has so many different meanings. And he admitted that only one firm has agreed to do so. Why? Lawyers generally tend not to change the way they do things, even if there's good reason to do so. It's the same with contractions.

I used to use contractions in my writing....and received the 2.5 in Legal Writing to prove it.

If you leave them out, you might end up sounding a little stuffy to those who know the correct rule. If you include them, however, you sound "undignified" to those (like Scalia) who do not. Ultimately the latter is probably worse than the former, so people like Scalia end up as the lowest common denominator. The prior analogy to split infinitives is right on.

For anything other than a brief, however, I'd keep them in. That includes memos, law review articles, etc.

I used contractions in my writing....and received the 2.5 in Legal Writing to prove it.

I used contractions in my writing....and received the 2.5 in Legal Writing to prove it.

1:49 -

1:16 here. You wrote:
Why do contractions reflect a lack of polish? I'm assuming your answer is: "because they are bad." Or perhaps you'll use another word like "sloppy."

I do think they look sloppy. I think it makes the writing look like it is one step away from a 12 year old IMing her BFF.

If you think it improves readability, then fine. But, if you know some judges and other people in the profession have a big problem with them, why risk making yourself look "unpolished" for what you think adds to "readability?"

1:16-

Your second point does make sense - I'm on board with the "don't risk the judge thinking your a fool" idea.

Still don't see the first point - what is sloppy about it? If I intend to use a contraction, its not an editing mistake.

And its not the same as your 12 year old IMer example. Text message lingo would seems juvenile because its (1) filled with jargon (2) not easily readable without taking time to translate the jargon (3) bad at conveying ideas b/c it has a limited vocabulary. I don't see any of those problems with contractions.

I concede victory to you on the second point. The stuffy and unreasonable attitudes of judges makes using contractions in briefing a risky choice.

Is it appropriate to say "I'm FIRST!" in a blog comment?

How can a guy who's written so many snarky opinions really get his panties in a bunch over contracts as an "affront to the dignity of the court"? Couldn't we say the same of the snarky opinions?

Contractions are not sloppy, so much as they largely unusual in legal writing. Being unusual, they are a little jarring to the reader who does not expect them, which detracts from keeping the focus on substance. The informality also suggests that the writer may not have taken their time with the brief, writing it quickly without editing. That may or may not be true in any given instance, but it makes the reader ask themselves why this writer felt it was acceptable to deviate from the norm. That is my opinion as a former clerk, anyway.

Guys at my high school used to wear jeans to work and slang contractions around all the time; it was no big deal.

1:16 --

Just one person here, but I favor contractions, was on law review board, and clerk for a federal appellate judge. However, I used to be against them when I was a student.

2:57: Correct. Scalia is completely full of shit. hth!

Their's nothing wrong with contraction's; its others more substantive mistake's that bother me. For example, I've got a friend, and she uses contraction's, but hers was the best English I'd read.

I voted Yes, but if I were a Kozinski with life tenure I'd vote No and try to work in references to crappy reality shows in all of my contraction-laden briefs.

I'd think contradictions ain't good in law writin', 'less you be askin' for trouble.

"neither they nor any client of theirs pays a price for their contractions"

Wow. So here we have Scalia basically implying that he rules, not on the strength of the law as applied to the specific facts of the matter before him, but rather on the grammatical and syntax choices of parties' counsel.

Whatta guy.

The poll question isn't as illuminating as it could be (although it may be more practical). I wonder how many people responded "no" because of the fear that judges/senior lawyers don't approve (a legitimate conncern, in my opinion), rather than their personal opinion. I don't use contractions in briefs because some judge may think it is an "afront" to the court's dignity or whatever. But I do think that appropriately used contractions make writing more readable.

"Just one person here, but I favor contractions, was on law review board, and clerk for a federal appellate judge. "

How do you feel about verb agreement?

1:16: I'll bet there's a correlation between your comment and being a tool.

This makes me glad I didn't pay for that book. Contractions are a useful tool in certain contexts (such as the previous sentence), but they have no place in a brief. None. They add nothing to the clarity of the argument, and call into question whether you have carefully reviewed your arguments.

Yet, as Garner notes, Posner, Easterbrook, and Kozinski use them liberally. I just don't understand why these jurists, arguably three of the best legal writers out there, may use them but everyone else shouldn't. And Scalia's argument is simply weak. In every other discipline--whether it's journalism, fiction, and so forth--you are supposed to imitate other great writers in the field. Nothing suggests that the law is any different.

The arguments that you may offend some judges or that the use of contractions may "call into question whether you have carefully reviewed your documents" are unconvincing.

Contractions merely reflect what is the writer's thought process in standard vernacular English. It is no different than writing "bus" instead of "omnibus" or "exam" instead of "examination".

Every comment on this thread longer than three lines contains at least one uneducated typo and a totally douchie point of view, innit?

- Ali G

"In every other discipline--whether it's journalism, fiction, and so forth--you are supposed to imitate other great writers in the field."

And you also use contractions. But lawyers are generally awful writers who are too arrogant to recognize their clunkiness. I agree with most of the posts, though - pleasing a judge should probably be a higher priority than the crispness of your prose.

I guess my problem with contractions is that 99.9 % of the time they're not necessary in formal writing. I think refusing to use contractions in oral argument is a bit much. I imagine you'd sound pretty stilted.

I'm with Scalia (a rarity). I think it is "sloppy". The whole point of contractions is that they are a shortcut. Something about them hints at laziness, like you couldn't be bothered to type out the whole word. They have no place in any sort of formal writing.

I don't see how they improve readability either. In fact, I think separating out the words adds clarity. Maybe contractions make your tone more conversational... but conversational is for emails and blogs, not your professional work.

5:02 --

Point out the error. I fail to see it.

4:33 The verbs differ in tense. One happened in the past, the others did not. One might say they disagree.

7:54--

Thanks (sincerely). I knew that when I wrote it. It may be awkward to some, but I don't think it's grammatically improper. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. (And I did think 5:02's tone was rather snarky.)

From the Texas Law Review Manual on Usage & Style:

"Contractions are less formal than spelled-out words and are therefore inappropriate in some legal writing. But contractions may be employed to god effect in some places. No firm rule governs their use; simply know your audience and trust your ear."

Good advice, IMO.

Boy, it's a slooooow summer thus far - proper use of contractions? Oh well, here's my 2 cents:

6-8@7:54am: Just b/c verbs differ in tense doesn't mean that sentence is incorrect if it reflects current circumstance (and yes, I realize that you were responding to 5:02's snarky comment).

6-8@11:21am: Your sentence is awkward probably b/c you combined 2 separate thoughts into 1 sentence. How about the following:

"Just one person here, but I favor contractions[.] [I] was on law review board, and [now] clerk for a federal appellate judge. However, I used to be against them when I was a student."

End of Monday's lesson.

BITCHES DONT KNOW 'BOUT MY CONTRACTIONS!!!1

Only a lunatic like Scalia would rail against contractions despite issuing opinions laden with abbreviated case names. Typical conservative obsession with irrational rules.