A non-lawyer’s impression of bold, underlined, and italicized legal writing
05 August 2007
This morning’s Times-Picayune contains an interesting non-lawyer’s perspective on typography in legal writing. It’s in an op-ed piece by Stephanie Grace, commenting on a brief filed by Louisiana's attorney general, Charles Foti. In a case being prosecuted by Foti’s office, the defense moved to disqualify Foti based on a conflict of interests. Foti filed an opposition that Grace found “thoroughly bizarre.”
What created this impression of bizarreness? Besides the content, it was Foti’s liberal use of “unusual emphasis”: underlining, bold type, italics, all-caps, and exclamation points. Unfortunately, the Times-Picayune’s web site does not reproduce those typographical special effects; so below is an except from Grace’s column showing how it looks in the newspaper:
It is “mandatory” that the AG be involved in cases such as this, he argued.
“The outcome of either the civil or criminal aspects of this case present no personal advantage to Charles Foti, Jr., nor any person in the Louisiana Department of Justice,” he opined elsewhere.
“The sole purpose in this attack is the mistaken belief that the Attorney General may somehow ‘fold’ rather than fight the present case,” he continued. “The present motion is clearly a violation of ethics in and of itself by failing to follow the proper procedure and protocol for making such an allegation. COUNSEL IS FULLY AWARE OF THIS DEFECT AND THE DESIRED EFFECT THEY SEEK TO ACHIEVE AND THE MADNESS OF THEIR METHOD.”
And then there was this: “What the defendants request of the court is to remove the Attorney General and his office for doing his job!!!!”
That’s right, folks, four exclamation points.
Grace’s critique: While a criminal prosecution is personal and emotional for the defendant, the victim, and the victim’s family, “it’s not supposed to be [emotional] for the prosecutor.” She continues:
While everyone likes to win, Foti’s mission should be to work within the confines of the system, even if it does not lead to the outcome he vehemently desires. And that requires a measure of level-headedness and dispassionate analysis that he seems to have trouble mustering these days.
And it requires him to address the other side’s legal arguments on their merit, not take them as an affront.
Our lesson for today: If your written argument is laced with bold, underlined, or italicized text, you’ll make a strong impression—but it won’t be a good one.