By Andy Harp
It is no secret that legal writing can be difficult to read. It becomes even more of an ordeal when a sentence with a very simple proposition is followed up by three lines of citation. Reading a judicial decision becomes an acrobatic endeavor, dodging a “quoting” here and an “abrogated by” there. Sometimes, I will admit, my brain tries to simply skip past the lines of citation to the next sentence. This habit sometimes leads me to miss important substantive sentences nestled in a valley between two mountainous citation sentences. Recently, courts have attempted to vanquish this plague through the use of cleaned up citations.[1]
Citing Bluebook rule 5 as the main culprit, most courts now recognize the ability for writers to remove distractions from citations involving a quote from another case.[2] Here’s an example of what this looks like:
The test for abuse of discretion requires the reviewing court to determine whether a decision “‘is manifestly unsupported by reason,’ or ‘so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.’” Little v. Penn Ventilatory Co., 317 N.C. 206, 218, 345, S.E.2d 204, 212 (1986) (quoting White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985) and State v. Wilson, 313 N.C. 516, 538, 330 S.E.2d 450, 465 (1985)).
Becomes:
“[O]r so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” Little v. Penn Ventilator Co., 317 N.C. 206, 218, 345 S.E.2d 204, 212 (1986) (cleaned up). [3]
The North Carolina legal system has somewhat embraced this new era of citation, with hundreds of reported opinions including this new citation technique.[4] Indeed, this (cleaned up) parenthetical may revolutionize readability in the legal world, but there are still so many questions. When should one use this mechanic? Why does it matter at all? Where should citation scholars draw the line?
Why do we cite things at all? Legal arguments are built on credibility.[5] The cornerstone of credibility is falsifiability–the ability for someone to go in and verify the foundation of an argument.[6] Especially in the age of AI, where court filings have been submitted citing cases that never actually existed,[7] it is important to take a step back and remember that the law imparts real effects on real people. If a judge cannot verify a claim, cases get lost, and lives get damaged.[8] The ability to trace an advocate’s line of reasoning through their citations is more important today than ever before.[9] But surely there are times where an author can trim back some of the unnecessary citations while still remaining credible, right?
Naturally, those with built-up credibility and large audiences can afford to exchange exactness for readability.[10] Therefore, it is unsurprising that the Supreme Court feels qualified to utilize the (cleaned up) parenthetical.[11] This technique found its way into our highest court through the 2021 case Brownback v. King.[12] In Brownback, Justice Thomas legitimized the (cleaned up) movement by following a proposition with the citation “Id., at 501-502, 121 S. Ct. 1021, 149 L. Ed. 2d 32 (cleaned up).”[13] According to Bluebook rule 5.2(e), the full version of the citation should have looked like Id., at 501-502, 121 S. Ct 1021 (quoting Restatement (third) of Judgments § 19, Comment a, at 161 (Am. L. Inst. 1980).[14] Mercifully, that beast was slain at the hands of (cleaned up).[15] The revolution had begun.
The American court system persists because of its credibility.[16] Courts employ teams of dedicated professionals to fact check and double check their sources.[17] Additionally, courts often write for broad audiences–ones that may include laypeople trying to figure out how a ruling may affect them.[18] Therefore, there are times when it is more important to let a reader to follow the idea of a holding instead of tracing a citation’s lineage. Readers can take the assertions of a court at face value in a way that advocates asserting a claim in court cannot.[19]
The North Carolina Supreme Court has fully embraced the internal use of (cleaned up).[20] Section 1.7 advises employees of the court to “consider a ‘cleaned up’ quotation . . . when quoting something with an embedded quotation, especially if doing so would markedly improve the readability of the quoted content.”[21] If you have spent time in the NC court system, you may be familiar with this mechanic. So, if the courts can do it, should lawyers and advocates begin using (cleaned up) and other Bluebook alterations in their court filings? This is not wise. Sure, some judges may not mind the occasional de-cluttering of a citation or two, but remember, courts are designed to ensure the accuracy of the claims presented before it.[22] The goal of an advocate is to effectively convey the client’s argument to the court.[23] With a vocational creed of “better safe than sorry”,[24] we should give the court the most direct path to our argument’s support. One could probably get away with the (cleaned up) parenthetical for the less contested aspect of their claim, but for the most part, they should stick to the Bluebook.
[1] Laura Graham, (Cleaned Up) Citations: A Bold New Option to Bluebook Rule 5, N.C. Bar Ass’n (Aug. 16, 2023), https://www.ncbar.org/nc-lawyer/2023-08/cleaned-up-citations-a-bold-new-option-to-bluebook-rule-5/.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Peter W. Martin, Introduction to Basic Legal Citation, Cornell U. L. Sch. (2020), https://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/1-200#:~:text=What%20is%20%22legal%20citation%22%3F,of%20abbreviations%20and%20special%20terms.
[6] Julia Simon-Kerr, Law’s Credibility Problem, 98 Wash. L. Rev. 179, 180–81 (2023).
[7] Lyle Moran, Lawyer cites fake cases generated by ChatGPT in legal brief, Legal Dive (May 30, 2023), https://www.legaldive.com/news/chatgpt-fake-legal-cases-generative-ai-hallucinations/651557/.
[8] See Julia Simon-Kerr, Law’s Credibility Problem, 98 Wash. L. Rev. 179, 180–83 (2023).
[9] See id.
[10] See Laura Graham, (Cleaned Up) Citations: A Bold New Option to Bluebook Rule 5, N.C. Bar Ass’n (Aug. 16, 2023), https://www.ncbar.org/nc-lawyer/2023-08/cleaned-up-citations-a-bold-new-option-to-bluebook-rule-5/.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.; 592 U.S. 209 (2021).
[13] 141 S. Ct. at 748.
[14] The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation R. 5 (Columbia L. Rev. Ass’n et al. eds., 21st ed 2000).
[15] Laura Graham, (Cleaned Up) Citations: A Bold New Option to Bluebook Rule 5, N.C. Bar Ass’n (Aug. 16, 2023), https://www.ncbar.org/nc-lawyer/2023-08/cleaned-up-citations-a-bold-new-option-to-bluebook-rule-5/.
[16] See Julia Simon-Kerr, Law’s Credibility Problem, 98 Wash. L. Rev. 179, 180–83 (2023).
[17] Judge’s Chambers, The Courthouse: A Guide to Planning & Design, N.C. Sup. Ct. (last visited Jan. 24, 2025), https://www.ncsc.org/courthouseplanning/the-courthouse/judges-chambers#:~:text=The%20group%20of%20private%20offices,and%20size%20of%20the%20court.
[18] Ryan C. Black et al., Supreme Court Opinions and Audiences, 54 Wash U. J. L. & Pol’y 169, 169–70 (2017).
[19] See Julia Simon-Kerr, Law’s Credibility Problem, 98 Wash. L. Rev. 179, 180–83 (2023).
[20] Office of Administrative Counsel, Supreme Court of N.C., The Guidebook: Citation, Style, and Usage at the Supreme Court of North Carolina, § 1.7 (3d ed. 2023).
[21] Id.
[22] See Julia Simon-Kerr, Law’s Credibility Problem, 98 Wash. L. Rev. 179, 180–83 (2023).
[23] See id.
[24] See Laura Graham, (Cleaned Up) Citations: A Bold New Option to Bluebook Rule 5, N.C. Bar Ass’n (Aug. 16, 2023), https://www.ncbar.org/nc-lawyer/2023-08/cleaned-up-citations-a-bold-new-option-to-bluebook-rule-5/.
