Thread by @ImmersionClinic

Here's the rest of thread:
25. That is, let that prose drive the brief’s substantive points, and do not delegate that work to parentheticals.
Recently, I reviewed a draft brief that said this (with the citations and some words altered to disguise the case):
[cont'd]

26. Under the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to expect a layperson—much less one proceeding pro se in her second language—to extract from the applicable legal authorities the preferred venue for filing her claim. [cont’d]

27. See B v. A, 1 F.3d 1 (3d Cir. 2001) (observing that Section 4 does not indicate which tribunal should receive a motion for reconsideration and that the regulations designed to “fill this lacuna” are not “a model of clarity”). [cont'd]

28. Why stop the reader and require her to fish around a bit for the material in the parenthetical? How about this instead: [cont'd]

29. Under the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to expect a layperson—much less one proceeding pro se in her second language—to extract from the applicable legal authorities the preferred venue for filing her claim. [cont’d]

30. As the Third Circuit has observed, Section 4 nowhere indicates which tribunal should receive a motion for reconsideration and the regulations designed to “fill this lacuna” are not “a model of clarity.” B v. A, 1 F.3d 1 (3d Cir. 2007). [cont'd]

31. There may be a better way of converting the parenthetical into ordinary prose. My point is not that the prose chosen in this example is perfect, but that using the parenthetical at all diminishes the likelihood of persuasion. [cont'd]

32. *Third,* avoid parentheticals, and particularly strings of them, in the middle of a paragraph in the body of a brief. (The considerations may be different when these kinds of parentheticals are placed in a footnote.) [cont'd]

33. Mid-paragraph parentheticals force the reader to stop and search for what the writer has to say after the citation, and then, only after absorbing their meaning, pick up the rest of the thought as the paragraph moves ahead and ends. [cont'd]

34. That’s not a good thing. In English grammar, a paragraph generally expresses an integrated idea. Why interrupt the transmission of that idea with a search-and-understand mission? [cont'd]

35. At the least, try to devise a sensible way to get the parenthetical-laden citation(s) to the end of the paragraph. That way, the reader will have your full idea in mind before she wades through the parenthetical(s). [cont'd]

36. (Better yet, come up with a way to employ the techniques discussed above and ditch these kinds of parentheticals.) [cont'd]

37. *Fourth,* if you are going to use parentheticals, make them understandable. True, your reader may skip over them, but if you want to use one, it shouldn’t be treated as a short-cut or a throw-away. [cont'd]

38. That doesn’t mean they must always be full sentences. A series of footnoted citations proving up a point or showing that lots of authority is on your side, in which the parenthetical says “same” or “similar,” is fine. [cont'd]

39. Lawyers are trained to pick up some pithy signals instantly. Even a fairly long, but truncated parenthetical occasionally works well if it is crafted with care and attention to the reader’s needs. [cont'd]

40. But often parentheticals eliminate articles or truncate verbal phrases, requiring readers to stop and figure things out. I don’t know where the tradition of watered-down, non-grammatical parenthetical-speak came from, but it’s not good. [cont'd]

41. I see fewer hard-to-understand, truncated parentheticals nowadays than I used to. But, still, I read many contorted parentheticals that require me to stop and reconstruct, while, meanwhile, I lose the writer’s train of thought. [cont'd]

42. So, whenever there’s doubt about whether a parenthetical’s syntax will adequately and promptly convey your meaning, add a few words to ensure that the parenthetical—if you need it at all—is understandable. [cont'd]

43. Conclusion

To sum up: Don’t use parentheticals to drive the substance of your brief. Use the brief’s ordinary prose to do that. [cont'd]

44. If a draft of a 30-page brief has more than two or three parentheticals in the body of the brief to support important points, those points probably could be made more cogently—a signal that reform is needed. [cont'd]

45. Don’t use parentheticals to repeat what you’ve just said or to say something that easily can be taken out of the parenthetical and placed in ordinary text. [cont'd]

46. If there’s reason to use a parenthetical, try to place it at the end of a paragraph where it won’t interrupt the reader’s understanding of your ideas. [cont'd]

47. Finally, within a parenthetical, prefer ordinary English, so the reader knows immediately what you’re talking about. [End!]