Some judges and attorneys are engaging in a relatively new writing practice: when altering quotations non-substantively, instead of specifically indicating what’s been changed, they simply drop the notation “cleaned up” at the end of the quotation. It’s the invention of appellate lawyer Jack Metzler, who said that the convention avoids “[a] passage . . . becom[ing] cluttered with brackets, ellipses, and quotation marks that distract the reader’s eyes and attention.” (Metzler, Cleaning Up Quotations (2017) 18 J. App. Prac. & Process 143, 145.) For example, in the preceding quotation, “cleaned up” would allow for the removal of the ellipsis and the brackets around “a” and “ing.”

Has “cleaned up” caught on in California? The California Supreme Court has never used it. The Courts of Appeal have, but mostly in unpublished opinions. (From a Westlaw search, I count 19 published Court of Appeal opinions using “cleaned up,” all since February 2022. The U.S. Supreme Court has used it once, in 2021.) Significantly, “cleaned up” appears to violate the California Style Manual. (Either the Style Manual or The Bluebook must be used for citations in court filings in general (rule 1.200) and appellate brief writers are “encouraged” to follow the Style Manual (Advisory Committee Comment to rule 8.204(b)).)

At The Lectern asked for comments about “cleaned up” from the Supreme Court’s justices and from California’s Reporter of Decisions, Lawrence Striley. Specifically, we asked such things as whether “cleaned up” does violate the Style Manual, whether the justices approve of counsel using “cleaned up” in briefs, and whether an in-the-works revision of the Style Manual will discuss “cleaned up.”

Responses were conveyed by Cathal Conneely, the Judicial Council’s Public Affairs Director.

He said the Reporter of Decisions “follows, among other” Style Manual provisions, paragraphs 4:12 (“Quoted material should correspond exactly with its original source in wording, spelling, capitalization, internal punctuation, and citation style. Any deviations must be indicated or explained. Explanatory or other material inserted within the quotation must be placed in brackets or otherwise noted.”) and 4:22 (“Internal quotation marks may not be omitted”). My comment: these provisions are clearly incompatible with using “cleaned up.”

Conneely also said, however, that “it would be premature to say what the final version of the [revised Style Manual] will provide.” And we’ll have to wait for the court’s views. “[I]n general individual justices do not respond to media inquiries regarding matters pending before the court, including administrative matters,” Conneely related, repeating the answer that it’s premature to comment on what will be in the revised Style Manual.

I hope the revised Style Manual keeps paragraphs 4:12 and 4:22 as is and that it explicitly says, “[t]hou shalt not use ‘cleaned up.’ ”  (Bracket and internal quotation marks intentionally retained.) I don’t find brackets, ellipses, and internal quotations marks to be distracting and I’d like some specific indication of what changes the writer has made to a quotation.