legal writing 

Citations and Parentheticals Done Right

Master the art of citations and parentheticals in legal writing to boost your credibility and fluency. Learn best practices, common mistakes to avoid, and how to make your citations clear and impactful.
  • Joe Regalia

Citations

Let’s start with the basics that many lawyers seem to forget. If you cite authority, you should either quote the source or directly paraphrase it (saying precisely the same thing in slightly different words).

Lawyers constantly drop citations on readers without clearly signposting how that citation supports the sentence. Talk about a fluency and credibility killer. If your reader needs to go look up a case to figure out exactly how it supports the sentences you’re writing—the game may already be lost.

Citing Correctly

If your reader needs to make any inference to agree with your underlying sentence, you need to make that inference crystal clear or cut the citation altogether and rely on your own credibility. There really is no middle ground. Either you make it extremely obvious what the citation is doing for you, or cut the distraction.

Obviously as you set up the background rule on the way to focusing on what matters, you may have some generic rule principles that require a cite and nothing more. “Plaintiff has the burden here. [cite]” might be an example. But that would still only be true if the case actually said that in so many words—no inference needed.

Being Precise Matters

The risk here is that if your reader goes and pulls up a case and it doesn’t directly say what you said it says, and your reader must infer—they aren’t going to trust your other citations either.

In any event, when you start explaining your rule—and especially when it’s an important part of the rule that you need to win your readers on—never, ever rely on empty citations.

You must do the inferential reasoning for your reader and put it on display.

Say you write this: 

“Defendants need not touch the plaintiff’s skin to carry out a battery—touching something laying on the plaintiff’s body is enough. Park vs. Hoffman, 324 F. 3d 42, 44 (9th Cir. 2018).”
When your reader pulls up page 44 of Park, it better say something like:

 Different words, but precisely the same meaning:

“A defendant contacts another by touching any item on the plaintiff’s body.” 
If your reader must infer—say, you assume that this was the court’s reasoning based on the facts in the case, or you’re reading between the lines of some language and what the court didn’t say—you can’t just cite the case. You need to provide some more explanation to the court about what inference your making.

One option is to explain your inference directly: 

“Given that the court in Park addressed a defendant who ripped a plate from the plaintiff’s hand, contact with the plaintiff’s skin is not needed. Park vs. Hoffman, 324 F. 3d 42, 44 (9th Cir. 2018).”
Your citation is not misleading because you’re telling your reader what inferences you’re relying on.

You could also interpret the rule in your own words, then explain the supporting facts or quotes with citations: 

“Contact with the plaintiff’s skin is not needed. [no cite—you are saying “judge this is the right interpretation, now I’ll show you why.] In Park, the court address a defendant who ripped a plate from the plaintiff’s hand. Park vs. Hoffman, 324 F. 3d 42, 44 (9th Cir. 2018).”
Now you are telling the judge that the first sentence is your inference, the second is a direct paraphrase of the case’s fact section. All good.

The point is that when your reader won’t instantly know what a case says (at least paraphrased) or why you cited it, explain it in the text or a parenthetical.

This is a huge fluency drag otherwise, as your reader wonders what the case said or stands for, and literally must look it up. That could be the worst case scenario.

So again, avoid using cites like this:

“The rule of plevin requires courts to inquire further when parties dispute the terms of an agreement. Park v. Hoffman, 654 F.2d 578 (2012).”
Instead, use one of these options to make the citation’s purpose obvious.

One option is a parenthetical:

“The rule of plevin requires courts to inquire further when parties dispute the terms of an agreement. Park v. Hoffman, 654 F.2d 578 (2012) (considering contract dispute and explaining courts cannot stop at the plain language when interpreting).”
Another is a quote:

“The rule of plevin requires courts to inquire further when parties dispute the terms of an agreement.” Park v. Hoffman, 654 F.2d 578 (2012).”
Finally, the direct explanation:

“In Park, the court required further inquiry into the terms of the agreement because the rule of plevin was raised in the complaint. Park v. Hoffman, 654 F.2d 578 (2012).”

A Few More Tips 

Before moving on from our citations, a few more quick tips. Consider moving citations to the end of sentences whenever you can. Or describe them first with a shorthand name.

And consider putting the court, year, and other quality information directly in the text, if it’s helpful. Don’t expect that your reader will read the cite—because many don’t.

So instead of: 
“In Gonzala Orzhina v. Paleot Systems and More Inc., 321 U.S. 141, 155 (2012), the court held …”
Try cutting the burdensome citation information from your affirmative text:
“The Supreme Court recently held that …. Gonzala Orzhina v. Paleot Systems and More Inc., 321 U.S. 141, 155 (2012).”
Or lead with a short form at least:
“In Gonzala v. Paleot, …”
Dish up the authority’s quality if it helps persuade:
“Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court held …”

String Cites

Yes, the rumors were right. String cites usually suck. They annoy and clutter up your writing. But with a purpose, they can be helpful. So use the occasional string cite to do things like:

  • Drive home that a key point is beyond reproach.
  • Provide quick examples of how a rule has been used.
  • Show other examples, like what sort of courts have adopted a rule.

“Every court around the nation to consider this issue agrees with this approach. E.g., Verus v. Samtel, 312 F. 3d 221 (9th Cir. 2002); Jerico Binding Co. v. Pontiac, 312 F. 3d 221 (4th Cir. 2002); Namesta v. Purtel corp., 312 F. 3d 221 (7th Cir. 2002); Jameson LLC v. Orangtan Corp., 312 F. 3d 221 (8th Cir. 2002)”. 

Parentheticals

Now let’s talk about parentheticals. These things are all over legal writing. But rarely do folks talk about why (or whether they are a good thing). Adding a tidbit of insight or explanation in a parenthetical after a citation can do wonders for readers. You can amplify a critical point. Provide illuminating examples, and more.

But too many thoughtless parentheticals make this tool worthless. And many legal writers fall into the trap of replacing their own explanation and reasoning about the law with a list of parentheticals.

What Are Parentheticals 

Parentheticals are a word, phrase, or sentence sandwiched between parens at the end of a citation to some legal authority. They typically tell users how the authority supports whatever you wrote before the citation, like by offering an example of a rule being applied.

The Wrong Way to Use Parentheticals 

First

Parentheticals are not the right place to include critical points for the first time. Parentheticals are, by definition, an aside. With care, they can bolster and support and clarify.
But they are not the place to make your main points for the first time. 

So none of this:

“Battery requires intent. Jeremey v. Terry, 324 F.3d 24 (2004) (explaining that transferred intent is appropriate only in cases involving purposeful contact).
If you’ve never made that transferred intent point before, then don’t expect your reader to see it crammed into a parenthetical. The takeaway here is: Important points should go in regular sentences, not in a parenthetical.

Second

Don’t use parentheticals for tangential points that won’t help your reader understand the law, the facts, or your reasoning.

In other words, don’t use parentheticals just to pad your legal writing so that it looks more “supported.” Because folks much prefer a more concise, easier-to-read document that focuses on what matters. These tangents or weak points will just distract readers. Have a good reason to add a parenthetical, otherwise cut it.

Third

Avoid lengthy parentheticals. If you have a lot to say, and it matters so much that you want to use up a bunch of real estate, again, it needs to be explained by you with ordinary sentences, not parentheticals.

Fourth

Avoid repetitive parentheticals. If one parenthetical gets your point across, don’t add them to every other cite just for fun.

When Should We Use Parentheticals 

There are a few common reasons.

First

You want to offer examples from different authorities, and listing them all out in sentences would be excessive.

Here you’ve made the point in your sentence and the citations just offer some examples that bring your point home. You’ll often start the citation with an “e.g.,” signal to set up the examples.

“Courts have held a prima facie case is stated in only the rarest of cases, like when a medical doctor has left a device inside of a patient. See, e.g., James v. Taylor, 86 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 2020) (pliers left in patient’s chest cavity); Sampo v. Medical Executives, 192 Cal. 21 (2017) (medical tape left under skin during stomach surgery).”
Notice that the main point—that the cases are rare and involve things being left inside patients—is made in the regular prose. The parentheticals just drive the point home with some vivid examples.

Second

You have an extremely critical point to make about the law, and you want to amplify the force of your points on the matter with some more quotes or holdings, and it would be excessive to include them all in your prose. Make sure to only use this tool sparingly, otherwise it’s power will be lost.

“No court has required a plaintiff to show actual harm before bringing this claim. Belfi v. Hariton Homes LLC, 134 U.S. 45 (2006) (holding that no actual harm has “ever been required”).
Third

You want to subtly add in the force of a speaker but don’t want to make it obvious. Or, similarly, you want to let an authority subtly suggest something that you don’t want to outright say yourself.

For example, you might want to include some key judges, parties, courts, or language that help add emotion or persuasive force, but coming right out with it would not strike the right tone.

“No court has required a plaintiff to show actual harm before bringing this claim. Belfi v. Hariton Homes LLC, 134 U.S. 45 (2006) (noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has sanctioned counsel for ignoring this rule).”

“Under Rule 9(B) of the Local Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant’s brief may not exceed 30 pages. Jerry v. Tarkanian, 29 U.S. 329 (2000) (refusing to address nine claims because they were “contained in the portion of appellant’s brief that exceeds the page limit under Loc.R. 9(B)”).
Fourth

If you are citing authorities that readers won’t instantly understand.

There can be plenty of good reasons to include a citation even when you don’t want to take up precious real estate with extensive explanations. For example, perhaps you are nearly sure a point will be conceded, so you prefer just to cite a couple of authorities to put the issue to rest.
If you cite a case or other authority and it won’t be honest how it supports your prose, a parenthetical is always a safe bet. Because the last thing you want is to force readers to go look authority up for themselves.

Final Tips for Crafting the Perfect Parenthetical

If you’d like to use the participle-format (beginning the parenthetical with an “ing” word) then vary your participles and choose them with care. There are dozens to choose from, and each offers a different flavor. For example: 

(holding that the plaintiffs were in the wrong…)
Is not as strong as:
(rebuking plaintiffs for…)
Drop the “ing” words when a quote or short phrase will do better. 

Take examples, which often don’t require a participle:

“Courts have held a prima facie case is stated in only the rarest of cases, like when a medical doctor has left a device inside of a patient. See, e.g., James v. Taylor, 86 F.2d 310 (9th Cir. 2020) (pliers left in patient’s chest cavity); Sampo v. Medical Executives, 192 Cal. 21 (2017) (medical tape left under skin during stomach surgery).”
The same rules for quoting apply here: Use them only if they are better than your own voice—and even then, just use snippets of the quote unless the full sentence is helpful for some special reason.

The same rule for quotes apply:

“James v. Morel Medical LLC, 255 F. Supp. 2d 55 (Nev. 1999) (holding that a golf cart is not a “vehicle” because it is not a “combustible-fuel” machine).”
Adept legal writing requires precision, clarity, and most importantly, credibility. In your quest to persuade, every citation you use must be unambiguous and directly supportive of your point, ensuring your reader trusts your argument and understands the inference you're making. 

When using parentheticals, be concise, pertinent, and avoid redundancy. Always remember, your role as a legal writer is not just to cite the law but to elucidate it, ensuring your reader doesn't get lost in the thicket of legal complexities.

By following these guidelines, you elevate your writing from a mere presentation of the law to an engaging conversation that resonates with your reader.
Joe Regalia
Write.law co-founder Joe Regalia combines his experience as both practitioner and professor to create exciting new ways to teach legal skills.  Learn more about Joe

Sign up for our newsletter!

Get writing and other legal practice tips delivered to your inbox every other Thursday.
Thanks for joining!
We’ve sent a welcome email to your inbox.