In D.C. Circuit, Judge Calls Use of Acronyms 'Painful'

By now, if lawyers haven't already taken notice, they should: Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit isn't a big fan of abbreviations, including acronyms. Today, the judge twice questioned the space-saving practice of shortening.

This summer, for quick background, Silberman dropped a footnote in a ruling to spotlight his concern about the excessive use of abbreviations and acronyms.

"Here," the judge wrote in June, "both parties abandoned any attempt to write in plain English, instead abbreviating every conceivable agency and statute involved, familiar or not." Recognize these? The examples Silberman highlighted: SNF (spent nuclear fuel); HLW (high-level radioactive waste); and NWF (Nuclear Waste Fund).

Silberman's frustration with truncation (FWT, for short?) hasn't waned. At a hearing today, in an unrelated dispute about nuclear energy, the judge directed his criticism to a senior trial lawyer at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (The case was Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)

Silberman, setting up the scene, asked Robert Rader of the commission how long he's litigated environmental cases. (Answer: since the late 1970s.) That's a long time, of course, giving Rader some familiarity with constructions such as "EIS" (environmental impact statement); "SAMDA" (severe accident mitigation design alternative) and NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act).

The judge told Rader that lawyers should not expect generalist judges to be as well-versed with the acronyms that appear in any attorney's day-to-day work.

"It's painful," Silberman said. Rader twice apologized. Silberman later said: "You obviously didn't read our rules."

Yes, there are rules. The D.C. Circuit in January 2010 issued a public notice about the use of acronyms and abbreviations. The court's rules, the notice said, permit the use of abbreviations, including acronyms, as long as there's a glossary defining the abbreviation.

"To enhance the clarity of the brief, the court strongly urges parties to limit the use of acronyms," the note said. "While acronyms may be used for entities and statutes with widely recognized initials, such as FERC and FOIA, parties should avoid using acronyms that are not widely known."

After today's nuclear energy case wrapped up, the clerk called the second case on the docket. Robert Bennett, et al. v. Shaun Donovan. Silberman was presented another chance to continue the dialogue on abbreviations.

Jean Constantine-Davis of the AARP Foundation Litigation stepped up to the podium, to argue for the surviving spouses of reverse-mortgage borrowers, and said, right out of the gates, that "home equity conversion mortgage" would be referred to as "HECM."

"As what?" Silberman asked.

Constantine-Davis spelled out the letters of the abbreviation. Silberman immediately noted the abundance of acronyms and abbreviations in the dispute.

"You didn't read the rules, either," the judge said.

Comments

[F. R. Eggers]

We seem to have an advanced case of acronytis.

[Joshua]

Judge Kleinfeld of the Ninth Circuit has been making a similar complaint for decades. The best example was where he explained how "Specialists might find this opinion more accessible if we explain that it concerns a NEPA challenge to a ROD of the BLM concluding that a FEIS adequately evaluated CBM development under the Powder River Resource Area RMP. The district court held the FEiS inadequate and partially enjoined approval of APDs until BLM completed a SEIS." Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Norton, 503 F.3d 836, 839 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Longview Fibre Co. v. Rasmussen, 980 F.2d 1307, 1308 n.1 (9th Cir. 1992).

[Damian I. Cano]

It's not so much a question of whether the judge or litigants understand the acronym, it is a matter of clarity that will affect citations of the case in perpetuity. These briefs, oral arguments, and statements must be comprehensible after the passage of time, so as to make easy understanding for those who might find legal or historical relevance in the proceedings.

[Colin]

I think that the rule requiring a glossary is brilliant, though it seems like providing the acronym in parallel cite in the source list would meet the same end.

[Brian]

There may be bigger fish to fry, but judges have a lot of fry pans. The opportunity cost of nudging the bar on this issue doesn't seem all that high.

[John Q Public]

ROFL.

[Steven J Fromm]

Come on. Really. He is making a point about this. A tax attorney would be lost without those babies.

[C.E. Petit]

As long as FRAP 32(a)(7) exists, and acronyms either take up less space or count as only a single word to word-counting programs, we're going to have to deal with them in briefs. A lot.

Of course, if lawyers were better writers in the first place (and weren't bound by excrutiatingly goofy citation rules that often eat up a much greater proportion of limited word counts than acronyms save), this wouldn't be that significant an issue. String cites are much greater barriers to comprehension than acronyms!

[Andrew]

WTF is he worrying about?

[Kira]

I agree with the DC Circuit. With the advent of macros, there is little reason to use Acronyms. I type HUD, and my machine gives me Housing and Urban Development. Space saving? Maybe not, but I find I have plenty of convoluted sentences that can be shortened for crisper writing without worrying about acronyms.

[GB]

A judge of his experience is unfamiliar with EIS and NEPA? Seriously? How would it help for the party to say "Statement" or "Act" instead? Unless the courts want the repetitive use of long terms or long statute names or are willing to allow more briefing space to accommodate such repetition, then the court ought to be a bit less demanding. I will concede that the judge has a point concerning "SAMDA" and "HECM."

[Toni Smith]

At last! A judge who feels the same way that I do about acronyms! Judge Silberman, you are my hero! Had to write a glossary of acronyms for electric utility once. It was a mind-numbing experience, but the glossary was well-used. Personal short rule: First use of an acronym has to be preceded by its meaning written out in full. Subsequent use of the acronym refers back to page on which it first appeared (e.g., LOL [Laughed Out Loud], p. 43). Keep the faith; I am your eternal advocate.

[Ron Miller]

I think there are probably bigger fish to fry than acronyms. Forest. Trees.