The Appellate Record : Texas Appellate Lawyer & Attorney Kendall Gray for Fifth Circuit & Supreme Court Appeals

"How can you say that there is a tax on letters?" you ask.

Simple. Why else would courts and lawyers voluntarily write the way they do if not to save money? Check out this passage from the Fifth Circuit's recent case of Personal Care Products, Inc. v. Hawkins:

Personal Care Products, Inc. (PCP) furnishes incontinence supplies to Medicaid recipients in twelve states, including Texas. In the course of a Medicaid fraud investigation, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission withheld reimbursements from PCP. PCP filed suit against state officers, alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed all claims, primarily on the grounds that PCP lacked a protected property interest in Medicaid payments withheld pending a fraud investigation. We affirm.

PCP? Is that "primary care physician" or PICKIP? Or maybe it's1-(1-phenylcyclohexyl), the original PCP or "Angel Dust."  That's the Wikipedia entry you get if you Google PCP. Instead, why not "the Supplier" or even "Personal Care Products?" The court is willing to write out "incontinence supplies," which is irrelevant to the decision, but unwilling to spell "Personal Care Products" more than once? There must be a letter tax.

And as much as I hate to pick on old Judge Per Curiam, check out this passage from the recent Supreme Court of Texas case, The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. National Union Fire Insurance Company:

In this insurance coverage dispute The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) sought a declaratory judgment that National Union Fire Insurance Company owed duties to defend and indemnify BNSF in a personal injury suit resulting from a collision between one of its trains and an automobile.

BNSF? What is a BINZIFF? Why not "Burlington Northern?" Or if that would hurt feelings on the Santa Fe side of the house, why not simply "the Railroad?" Again, it's the infamous letter tax.

I have written before on why indecipherable acronyms should be banned from legal writing, but Mark Hermann sent me the best rant on the subject I think I have ever seen. His post on Above the Law begins:

Quick! What short form will you use in your brief to identify your client, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.?

If your guts are screaming “PCNA,” then your guts need reworking.

But I chose this example for my column today because I’ve seen this very thing happen. I’ve seen a lawyer (at a perfectly good firm) assign the short form “PCNA” to this entity.

What was he thinking?

If I’m at the steering wheel of the case, then we’re not representing PCNA.

Who do we represent?

We represent Porsche, for heaven’s sake. Porsche.

Does it matter? Absolutely. Every good brief is a narrative. But acronyms cannot be characters in a story. Even if your client calls themselves BINZIFF or PCNA, you have to give them a character. You have to give them a name. Unless their initials are trademarked and immediately recognized (e.g., AT&T or FBI), the name should be a real word.

"Porsche: There is no substitute."