{"id":185,"date":"2014-05-13T18:34:00","date_gmt":"2014-05-13T18:34:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/?p=185"},"modified":"2021-12-11T18:12:55","modified_gmt":"2021-12-11T18:12:55","slug":"the-alwd-guide-capitulates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/?p=185","title":{"rendered":"The ALWD Guide Capitulates"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"alwd\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The fifth edition of the ALWD Citation Manual<\/em> was published this past month, renamed the ALWD Guide to Legal Citation<\/em> and stripped of the previous subtitle \u201cA Professional System of Citation.\u201d That event warrants attention here. This post is the first but probably not the last commenting on this latest version of what has been an important citation reference and teaching book. (In view of the name change I\u2019ll refer to it hereafter as the ALWD guide rather than switching back and forth between \u201cmanual\u201d and \u201cguide.\u201d)<\/p>\n

The obvious place to begin is with the work\u2019s final capitulation to The Bluebook. <\/em> The publisher\u2019s description<\/a> highlights this edition\u2019s elimination of \u201cstylistic differences between the ALWD Manual and the Bluebook, to help combat the perception that students who learn citation with ALWD do not know how to \u2018Bluebook.\u2019<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n

 1. Editions 1 through 4<\/h2>\n

When first introduced in 2000, the ALWD guide offered an alternative approach on numerous issues of style. Fundamentally it set forth a \u201csingle and consistent set of rules for all forms of legal writing.\u201d It rejected The Bluebook<\/em>\u2019s \u201cseparate and inconsistent systems\u201d for academic writing and professional writing in the form of memoranda and briefs. Its citation rules were derived, it said, from professional consensus. Finally, reflecting the reality that in the world of law practice rules and practices specific to a jurisdiction often trump academically proclaimed \u201cuniform\u201d rules, it included an appendix detailing \u201clocal citation rules or preferences.\u201d The subtitle accurately reflected this professional perspective.<\/p>\n

The original ALWD guide didn\u2019t allow itself to be trapped by The Bluebook<\/em>\u2019s inconsistencies. When the citation practice in some jurisdictions or courts offered a less cumbersome format than The Bluebook<\/em> prescribed, the 2000 ALWD guide felt free to embrace it. ALWD members and fans of its guide were not content with securing its adoption by legal writing faculty. They sought to persuade law journals to adopt its style. They lobbied courts whose rules mandated Bluebook<\/em> compliance to accept ALWD style as an alternative. In both respects they realized some success, although, no doubt, less than they had hoped for.<\/p>\n

ALWD\u2019s second edition (2002) maintained this independent stance. By the third (2006) the hope of winning over a critical mass of law journals had been relinquished, and consistent typeface conventions disappeared. For the first time the guide offered instruction on where and how to use large and small capital letters when \u201cworking with a journal or publisher that requires you to use this convention.\u201d It also yielded on the typeface to be applied to statutory titles (\u201cordinary\u201d rather than the \u201citalics\u201d called for by editions 1 and 2). The fourth edition (2010) brought further erosion. From the beginning the ALWD table of case name abbreviations had eschewed contractions. In the fourth edition for every word The Bluebook<\/em> abbreviated with a contraction, the ALWD guide now offered that contraction as an alternative, coupled with the advice that if the writer chose to use contractions they should be used \u201cconsistently throughout the paper.\u201d But on any number of other points ALWD style remained distinct.<\/p>\n

No longer. Those few journals that call for the citations in article submissions to be formatted in ALWD style<\/a> and state rules of procedure (like those in Alabama<\/a> and Idaho<\/a>) that specify ALWD style as a Bluebook<\/em> alternative have been rendered dead letter. Why the complete surrender? Pressure from the guide\u2019s main market segment and constituency, law students and those who teach them. The preface to the fifth edition explains (without once naming The Bluebook<\/em>): \u201cFeedback from membership surveys pointed to the staying power of certain scholarly traditions in legal citation and urged that ALWD modify its rules to acknowledge those traditions.\u201d In the fifth edition, the publication\u2019s ambition appears reduced to doing a better job than The Bluebook<\/em> of delivering Bluebook<\/em> content.<\/p>\n

2. Positions Surrendered<\/h2>\n

What are some of the points on which ALWD has given up its distinct, reasonable and professionally grounded position?<\/p>\n

a. Appellate court abbreviations<\/h3>\n

A simple one concerns the abbreviation for a state\u2019s intermediate appellate court to be used when the cite itself does not identify the court. For example, the writer wishes to cite a decision of the Florida Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, or the Texas Court of Appeals using its volume and page number in the National Reporter System. Per The Bluebook<\/em> that is done as follows: Szarzynski v. Szarzynski<\/em>, 732 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). Before the fifth edition the ALWD work took the sensible position that \u201cCt.\u201d was unnecessary and instructed that the citation be written: Szarzynski v. Szarzynski<\/em>, 732 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. App. 2007). Several considerations commend that approach not the least of which is that Minnesota courts and lawyers employ that style. Jurisdictions that have implemented print-independent or neutral citation schemes along the lines recommended by the A.B.A. and the American Association of Law Libraries<\/a> use the state abbreviation and \u201cApp\u201d to designate decisions of intermediate appeals courts. Nor do they stand alone. In their citation practice any number of courts and lawyers employ the more economic \u201cFla. App.<\/a>\u201d, \u201cMinn. App.<\/a>\u201d, and \u201cTex. App.<\/a>\u201d Sadly, the fifth edition of ALWD has abandoned that approach. Stripping unnecessary elements or characters from citations is always desirable.<\/p>\n

b. Treatment of the Federal Appendix reporter<\/h3>\n

Another unfortunate point of Bluebook<\/em> merger is on the abbreviation to be used in citations to that ridiculous reporter of \u201cunreported\u201d decisions, the Federal Appendix<\/em><\/a>. The publisher\u2019s abbreviation for this series is \u201cFed. Appx.\u201d and that is how past editions of ALWD had it. Knowledgeable Bluebook<\/em> users know that it favors \u201cFed. App\u2019x\u201d. A citation which The Bluebook<\/em> would have be written, Robinson v. Allstate Ins. Co.<\/em>, 508 Fed. App’x 7 (2d Cir. 2013), ALWD and the publisher formatted as Robinson v. Allstate Ins. Co.<\/em>, 508 Fed. Appx. 7 (2d Cir. 2013). Although this is a point of style on which the federal courts are themselves divided, a search of recent federal decisions uncovers a preference for \u201cFed. Appx.\u201d of over two-to-one. Appealing the matter all the way to the top, one discovers that the Supreme Court consistently employs \u201cFed. Appx.\u201d There is no justification other than conformity for the ALWD guide to yield on this point.<\/p>\n

c. Use of contractions in case names<\/h3>\n

The Bluebook<\/em>\u2019s use of \u201cApp\u2019x\u201d rather than \u201cAppx.\u201d reflects a general attachment to contractions. They dot its list of abbreviations to be used in case names \u2013 \u201cAss\u2019n\u201d for \u201cAssociation\u201d, Comm\u2019r for Commissioner, Dep\u2019t for Department, Eng\u2019r for Engineer, Fed\u2019n for Federation, Int\u2019l for International, and so on. As noted above, prior to the fourth edition, the ALWD guide\u2019s abbreviations contained no apostrophes; all ended with periods (e.g., Engr. and Intl.). The fourth edition authorized use of contractions as an alternative (e.g., Engr. or Eng’r, Intl. or Int’l). This new fifth edition specifies contractions wherever The Bluebook<\/em> does without an alternative. Where The Bluebook<\/em> takes an inconsistent approach (\u201cEnvtl.\u201d rather than \u201cEnvt\u2019l\u201d) ALWD now follows. Such slavish conformity cannot be justified in terms of uniformity of professional practice, for in this area, most especially, citation norms vary enormously<\/a>.<\/p>\n

d. Internet materials<\/h3>\n

In its coverage of materials available on the Internet ALWD\u2019s fourth edition called for the URL to be placed in parentheses and for the citation to conclude with a date. In order of preference that date was to be either one explicitly carried by the document itself, or the date the site indicated it was most recently updated (\u201clast updated\u201d), or the date the writer last accessed the material (\u201caccessed\u201d).<\/p>\n

To adhere to The Bluebook<\/em>\u2019s style on these points ALWD\u2019s fifth edition had to strip the parentheses, change \u201clast updated\u201d to \u201clast modified\u201d and \u201caccessed\u201d to \u201clast visited.\u201d The citation treatment of Web materials does continue to evolve, and all these changes can find support in current professional practice. On the other hand, ALWD\u2019s prior style choices were thoroughly defensible, and the conversion of \u201clast updated\u201d to \u201clast modified\u201d can only be explained on grounds of Bluebook<\/em> conformity. The U.S. Supreme has gone both ways on the matter, and, as on so many other citation details, it follows its own style, using the phrase \u201cas visited\u201d to describe the date it accessed a Web-based document.<\/p>\n

e. Et al.<\/h3>\n

Other points on which the ALWD fifth edition bows to Bluebook<\/em> style include the citation of:<\/p>\n