Karin Ciano, The Daily Record Newswire
A reader writes: “I would like to see you write a column condemning the epidemic of italicizing, bolding, and underlining in legal writing. Someone has to take a stand.”
Done! (This column is dedicated to the victims of the emphasis epidemic—the “overemphasizers,” in the words of Matthew Butterick, author of Typography for Lawyers. You know who you are. If you have ever found yourself using italics, bold, and underlining in the same paragraph—please read on, help is on the way.)
Dear reader, your question actually raises two issues: what to emphasize, and how.
Let’s start with how. Back in the day (let’s call it ancient Rome), font choices were limited, and we weren’t so concerned with conveying emphasis in writing… you went to your workshop, got out your chisel, and laid out a nice row of ALL CAPS, all the time. (Maybe ancient Roman lawyers who wanted to emphasize a point in a brief carved their tablets deeper, or used larger letters; if so, their efforts appear to be lost to history.)
With modernity came options. The printing press gave us not only upper-case and lower-case letters (so named for the customary location of the wooden cases in which printers kept typefaces), but also italic and boldface fonts. With the invention of the typewriter, writers without the tools or training to set type could begin to create sort-of-printed-looking documents. Because typewriters had only one font (Courier, natch), the only way to emphasize words was to underline text.
There things stood for another century—bold, italic, and their fancy cousins in the hands of trained professionals, and underlined Courier for the rest of us—until the invention of the word processor. The word processor liberated the print shop’s secrets for the benefit of a grateful public, but eventually it became necessary for writing authorities to counsel a little restraint.
Which brings us to another of the great debates of our time: when (if ever) may bold, italic, and underlining be used to emphasize text within the same document? (I say emphasize text, because different rules apply to headings and subheadings, to case names in citations, and arguably to Latinisms.)
There is a rule, my friends, but you’re not going to like it: for legal writing, one may emphasize words in text only by using italics. No underline, and no bold. Yes, really—says the Bluebook (Rule 7) and the Chicago Manual of Style (16th, ¶ 7.47).
No underline? No underline. Underlining is a relic of a bygone age; says Butterick on his website, “I notice it only in the tabloids. Is that the look you’re going for? I didn’t think so.”
And no bold? Not yet. While neither the Chicago Manual nor the Bluebook so much as acknowledge the existence of bold for the purpose of emphasis, the united front of Legal Writing Authorities v. Boldface Type may yet see some defections. Butterick recommends italics for gentle emphasis in serif fonts (such as this one), and bold for stronger emphasis; he also considers them “mutually exclusive.” If you’re using a sans-serif font, he recommends using only bold, because the italic (technically, oblique) font options are hard to read. Retired judge Mark Painter also recommends using bold for emphasis, and reserving italics for case names.
Bold has appeal for a simple reason: we’re reading on screens, and italics are hard to read on a screen. Briefwriter and appellate advocate Michael Skotnicki believes “bold emphasis stands out better than italics when a page in a brief is being quickly scanned,” helping readers (especially law clerks) navigate to key words and points.
But dear readers, we’re not there yet. I, of course, was trained that it was louche to use bold for emphasis—and although as a former clerk I must concede Skotnicki’s very valid point, seeing a bold sentence in the middle of a paragraph still makes me a little squeamish. If italics feels like a tap on the shoulder, then bold is an elbow in the ribs. Mixing bold and italic feels like an argument—not the kind you make in court, but the kind you have on a Sunday morning after getting in late Saturday night, where your loved ones may be making really sensible points that you’d appreciate so much better if they weren’t too darn loud. And don’t even get me started (especially in a professional newspaper) on what happens when bold, italics and underline walk into the same sentence. Those of you tempted to boldly emphasize whatever makes sense at the time must carefully weigh the benefit of capturing your audience’s attention against the drawback of really, really pissing them off. Worth the risk? You decide.
Thus we arrive at our second issue: what to emphasize?
As little as you can. Less is definitely more, and the more dramatic your emphasis, the less of it you need; remember that the best way to emphasize a point is to write a good sentence. You can get away with italicizing a word or phrase every few pages (at most). If you absolutely must use bold for emphasis, save it for the rare case where you need to draw the court’s attention to a critical point that might easily be overlooked in a gigantic brief—and emphasize the one sentence or clause in your document that you want the court to remember and find again easily. If it’s not obvious which sentence deserves that treatment, stick with italics.
Also remember that emphasis plays two roles—it draws the reader’s attention the first time, and will also be used to navigate later. So before you submit a document, take a moment to read every emphasized word aloud and ask yourself: if someone were standing over my shoulder pointing out these words, would I be appreciative or annoyed?
Bonus extra credit: If you’re quoting someone who uses bold, do you have to reproduce the bold?
I couldn’t find a rule on this, so allow me to propose one: No, you don’t. You must indicate which words are emphasized (Bluebook Rule 5.2(d)(i)), but there’s no rule requiring you to use the same font.
Happy holidays, dear readers, and thank you for your questions! I look forward to hearing more from you in the New Year.
