Pet Peeves, Numbering 10

1. Intermixing italics and underlining as if both did not mean exactly the same thing. Such intermixing is like wearing socks with different colors to oral argument.

2. Not turning off automatic superscripting of ordinals. Just because a word-processing program has default settings does not mean that those default settings should be kept. Superscripting the Circuit in a legal citation is like wearing a baseball cap to oral argument.

3. Citing outdated reference books.

4. In plaintiff's reply brief, arguing that the Commissioner's statement of the facts is incomplete when such a critique has no point and when plaintiff's statement of the facts is no less incomplete. A plaintiff does not win his or her case when the Commissioner's statement of the facts does not mention a certain fact.

5. Obsequiousness before ALJs and the Appeals Council. "As your humble servant, Your Majesty, I would ask you to entertain consideration of this evidence."

6. Boldface, capitalization, and/or exclamation marks for emphasis. Unless a writer wants to raise the issue of whether he or she is either a teenager or bipolar, the writer should not use boldface, capitalization, or exclamation marks for emphasis.

7. Idiosyncratic legal citations. Legal writing isn't a first-grade art class. In legal citation, creativity is a vice, not a virtue. If you are not a hillbilly, don't write like one. If you are a hillbilly, try to conceal that fact from the tribunal.

8. Misquotation. The words between quotation marks must actually appear in the quoted text as they appear in that text. SSA OGC knows what quotation marks designate. Why don't plaintiffs' attorneys?

9. When replying to an e-mail message on this list, failing to delete the prior message except for those words essential for the reply.

10. Flaming ALJs or the Appeals Council. A plaintiff's arguments are not made persuasive by exaggeration, sarcasm, and inflammatory language.