Bluebook: Here to stay, but lawyers don’t have to like it

Scott Roberts
May 4, 2016
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A valuable way to standardize citations and make court cases and sources easier to find, or “560 pages of rubbish” as 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner said in a recent article for the Green Bag? That’s been the debate over The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation for several years. There are staunch fighters on both sides, but they can agree on one thing — it’s here to stay for now.

The repository for how to cite everything from almanacs to Zillow has drawn complaints that with its italicized commas and overcomplicated entries, it’s too “pedantic” and “a waste of time.”

gjerdingen-don-mug.jpg Gjerdingen

“It’ll always be there because it’s too difficult to change,” said Donald Gjerdingen, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law. He conducted a 1978 review of the 12th edition of the Bluebook for the William Mitchell Law Review. “Some of it has to do with it’s a default rule, and who’s going to change it?”

Another reason it won’t be changed, according to Gjerdingen, is that no one wants to challenge the Harvard Law Review, the publisher of the Bluebook. Other law schools and publishers feel they don’t have the standing and sway to change it, even though some might want to.

“Especially among the non-Ivy League schools, no one feels like they can change it, and that’s unfortunate. They might do a good job,” he said.

mcgregor-deborah-mug.jpg McGregor

Deborah McGregor, a professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law who’s taught legal writing for 29 years, wasn’t as sure about the Bluebook’s future. She said it’s easy to find a correct citation in a number of places, including on Lexis Nexis, and sometimes it doesn’t matter if citation is not absolutely correct.

“Online research systems are now trying to provide proper citation form. As a result, the Bluebook may be unecessary in the future.”

ryznar-margaret-mug Ryznar

Margaret Ryznar, another IU McKinney law professor, agrees with Gjerdingen that the Bluebook is likely here to stay.

“I suspect lawyers will always have a love/hate relationship with the Bluebook,” Ryznar said. “However, law is a pretty formal field and so I think uniform citation is not going away anytime soon. I still require Bluebook for all the papers that I supervise at the law school and have no plans to change this policy.”

edwards-george.jpg Edwards

George Edwards, director of the international human rights program at IU McKinney, says the Bluebook provides a consistent form for citation across law disciplines.

“If a system is not effective, I could understand the need to shift away from it,” Edwards said. “I have seen no evidence that the Bluebook has lost its ability to provide a set of rules useful in helping lawyers, judges, students and law professors communicate effectively and efficiently.”

“When one uses words that aren’t familiar and are not well known, confusion, inefficiency and ineffective communications ensue,” he explained. “The Bluebook is an important tool that leads to consistency, predictability and clarity in legal briefs, judicial opinions and scholarly writing.”

McGregor said she certainly sees some redeeming qualities to the Bluebook, but also understands the arguments of people who think its control on citations and focus on miniscule details has gotten out of hand.

“Requiring Bluebook citation form does force students to pay attention to detail, and a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers. However, it’s more important that students pay attention to the detail in the content and form of their writings. The key to a citation is that allows readers to know the source of the information and how to access taht source.”

McGregor said other legal citation manuals have done a better job of being consistent in how different works are cited and those manuals make things simpler.

“I’ve never understood why the Bluebook requires different forms for text and footnote citations. But the Bluebook has been around a long time; changing the traditional is a challenge.”

Gjerdingen also said the Bluebook is not as uniform as it claims and found out when he did the review of the 1978 edition.

“I found out just how un-uniform it is,” Gjerdingen said. “It had a lot of typographical errors and it changes so much from issue to issue. If you submitted an issue from the seventh edition to someone who was using the 12th, they’d reject it all.”

Gjerdingen said some changes in citation style have changed the meaning of some federal court opinions to where they might be interpreted differently, and that cannot be allowed.

“I’m not going to argue about italics, that doesn’t matter,” he said. “But if you’re talking about dictum, that’s a big deal.”

He also agreed with Posner that the Bluebook is too cumbersome. He said it was a manageable size when it started in 1927, and he understands it has to change to keep up with technology, but it’s gotten too big for its own good.

“My sense is you could probably take about 10 pages and use those 95 percent of the time,” Gjerdingen said. “All the other pages really don’t do much.”

He says law schools feel learning Bluebook is a “right of passage” and one way a law student can impress their professors and/or their boss if they are a law clerk. However, that’s not necessarily a good thing.

“A 2L student can become hypersensitive. They’re going to prove they’re really, really good at this and that will show how diligent they are. I know some professors who hate turning in things they wrote to the student publications because it will get changed so much.”

He also complained the Bluebook is not easily accessible by everyday people who are not lawyers, and that also hurts the consistency as well as quality of writing.

“It’s a priest-like sacred text only a few are allowed to interpret,” he said.•


  • Detail
    "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review:

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: