(Cleaned Up) Citations: A Bold New Option to Bluebook Rule 5

For decades, attorneys have struggled with many of the citation rules mandated by The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. Even when the rules are clear, following them to the letter often results in long, clunky citations that detract from the readability of opinions, briefs, and other legal documents. One Bluebook rule that, when followed to the letter, results in particularly cumbersome citations is Rule 5, governing the content and format of quotations.[1]

Rule 5 permits you to modify a quotation to make it flow within your writing, for example, by substituting letters or words, adding or omitting letters or words, adding or omitting emphasis, and omitting citations. But it requires you to “show your work”—to indicate where you’ve made alterations to the original by using brackets, ellipses, and/or parentheticals. Rule 5 also provides that if you use a quotation within a quotation (an embedded quotation), you must keep multiple levels of nested quotation marks, alternating between double and single quotation marks as appropriate, and you must include a “(quoting) parenthetical” to indicate the source of the embedded quote. Presumably, these rules are designed to ensure precision and accuracy in writers’ use of quotations. But they become problematic when you’re quoting a case that is quoting another case (that may be quoting a third case)—especially where alterations have been made at each prior level.

There is a new convention gaining popularity in the legal writing world that makes some of the requirements of Bluebook Rule 5 obsolete in some circumstances: the use of a (cleaned up) parenthetical after a quotation that contains an embedded quotation.

The suggestion to use (cleaned up) originated with Jack Metzler, an appellate lawyer with the Federal Trade Commission, who tweeted on March 15, 2017: “I propose a new parenthetical for quotes that delete all messy quotation marks, brackets, ellipses, etc.: (cleaned up).”[2] A few days later, he posted an article to SSRN[3] (later published in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process) giving the details of his proposed new citation rule.[4]

Metzler began by recognizing the tension between the need to provide information that allows the reader to assess the weight to be given to the quoted authority and the need for readability.[5] A legal writing colleague has nicely summed up the philosophy behind Metzler’s proposal:

Directly quoting language from a court opinion is important to increase credibility of legal writing; it is a way of assuring a reader that this proposition has been adopted by a court in these exact words. But that benefit occasionally conflicts with readability and flow, so writers often modify quoted language by, for example, changing the verb tense or removing some words. Each of those changes adds clutter in the form of new punctuation: brackets, ellipses, single quotation marks within double quotation marks. When another court uses this now-modified language and may need to modify it again to fit with the flow of the new opinion, the typographical clutter increases exponentially.[6]

Metzler posited that this clutter can be reduced by using a (cleaned up) parenthetical to show that in quoting a court’s opinion, the writer:

  • has removed extraneous, non-substantive material like brackets, quotation marks, ellipses, footnote reference numbers, and internal citations;
  • may have changed capitalization without using brackets to indicate that change; and
  • affirmatively represents that the alterations were made solely to enhance readability and that the quotation otherwise faithfully reproduces the quoted text.[7]

Metzler then gave these directions for using (cleaned up):

To quote language from an opinion that includes a quotation from another opinion, simply enclose the words of the quotation itself within a single set of double quotation marks, leaving out brackets, ellipses, internal quotation marks and citations, and footnote reference numbers. Capitalize the first letter of the quotation if it begins your sentence; make it lower case if it does not. Cite the source of the quotation as if the words were original to the court you’re citing, and add (cleaned up) to the citation.[8]

The examples below illustrate the practical effect of using a (cleaned up) parenthetical. The first example follows the requirements of Bluebook Rule 5 for citing quotations that contain embedded quotations; the second example follows Metzler’s directions.

The abuse of discretion standard of review is applied to situations, such as this, which require the exercise of judgment on the part of the trial court. 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 Ventilator 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)).[9]

The abuse of discretion standard of review is applied to situations, such as this, which require the exercise of judgment on the part of the trial court. 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 Ventilator Co., 317 N.C. 206, 218, 345 S.E.2d 204, 212 (1986) (cleaned up).

The cleaned-up version is shorter and more readable. And since the two cases that were quoted in the original, White and Wilson, are both North Carolina Supreme Court cases that were decided before Little (also a North Carolina Supreme Court case), there is no “weight of authority” justification for including a (quoting) parenthetical citing those cases. Thus, this seems to be a textbook example of the benefit of using a (cleaned up) parenthetical.

Many lawyers and judges welcomed Metzler’s proposal, and (cleaned up) began to appear regularly in briefs and then in judicial opinions. And in 2021, (cleaned up) made its first appearance in a United States Supreme Court opinion, Brownback v. King.[10]

In its style and citation guide, the North Carolina Supreme Court suggests that its justices “consider” using a (cleaned up) parenthetical “when quoting something with an embedded quotation, especially if doing so would markedly improve the readability of the quoted content.”[11] A quick search of Westlaw this week revealed hundreds of opinions (both reported and unreported) from North Carolina courts, dating back at least to 2022, that include (cleaned up) parentheticals.

Our state courts’ widespread use of (cleaned up) suggests that North Carolina practitioners can comfortably use the parenthetical in briefs and other court submissions. But even those who are fans of (cleaned up) recognize that it should be used carefully.

If you are inclined to use (cleaned up), here are some things to think about:

  • Remember the purpose of the (cleaned up) parenthetical as Metzler explains it and as our state Supreme Court articulates it: to allow writers to achieve greater readability when quoting material that contains embedded quotations. Thus, practitioners would be wise to limit the use of (cleaned up) to this situation.
  • If you use a (cleaned up) parenthetical, be scrupulous about making sure that the cleaned-up version is an accurate representation of the content of the sources you are quoting. Many judges diligently consult the authorities cited in briefs and other submissions, seeking to verify for themselves that the cited authorities in fact say what the writer represents that they say. If, in using (cleaned up), you inadvertently (or, heaven forbid, intentionally) misrepresent the text of the authority you’re quoting, you cast doubt both on the reliability of your analysis or argument and on your credibility as an attorney.
  • Not all judges are equally familiar with the purpose and meaning of (cleaned up) parentheticals. If you’re submitting a document to a court that hasn’t issued any opinions using (cleaned up),[12] consider adding a footnote the first time you use it in your document, explaining what it signifies.[13]

If you have thoughts about the use of (cleaned up), or you’re a regular user of it, I encourage you to email me. I’ll share any email responses in a future column.

Laura Graham serves as Professor of Legal Writing and Director of Legal Analysis, Writing, and Research at Wake Forest University School of Law, where she has been teaching since 1999. She was the first recipient of the law school’s Graham Award for Excellence in Teaching Legal Research and Writing, which is named in her honor, and currently serves as immediate past president of the Association of Legal Writing Directors. Graham is a graduate of Wake Forest University and Wake Forest University School of Law.

[1] The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, Rule 5 (21st ed. 2020).

[2] Metzler’s Twitter(X) handle is @SCOTUSPlaces, and he tweets a LOT about legal writing.

[3] Social Sciences Research Network, ssrn.com, is an electronic clearinghouse on which academics and professionals self-post new articles and works-in-progress.

[4] Jack Metzler, Cleaning Up Citations, 18 J. App. Prac. & Process 142 (2017).

[5] Id. at 144.

[6] Emily Grant, Cleaning Up Quotations, 90 J. Kansas B. Ass’n 16 (May/June 2021) (citing Metzler, supra note 2, at 144-47).

[7] Metzler, supra note 2, at 154.

[8] Id. at 155.

[9] This example is drawn without alteration from a 2023 N.C. Supreme Court opinion.

[10] 141 S. Ct. 740 (2021). Some commentators have criticized Justice Thomas, the majority author, for using (cleaned up) to, in their view, “transform a distinction into a definition.” See, e.g., Katrina Robinson & Suzanne Rowe, SCOTUS (cleaned up): Should Oregon Attorneys Clean Up Quotations, Too?, 82 Or. St. B. Bull. 13 (Nov. 2021).

[11] 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).

[12] You can determine whether a particular court has used the phrase by doing a Westlaw or Lexis search in the appropriate jurisdictional database using the search term “(cleaned up”).

[13] Metzler offers this template for a footnote: “This brief uses (cleaned up) to indicate that internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations have been omitted from quotations. See, e.g., United States v. Reyes, 866 F.3d 316, 321 (5th Cir. 2017); Smith v. Ky., 520 S.W.3d 340, 354 (Ky. 2017); I.L. v. Knox Cty. Bd. of Educ., 257 F. Supp. 3d 946 & n.4 (E.D. Tenn. 2017).” See Metzler, supra note 2, at 163. Perhaps in North Carolina state court cases, rather than citing Federal District and Circuit cases, a practitioner would be better advised to cite to the North Carolina Supreme Court’s Style Guide.