Some say we should omit the last comma in a series because it takes up space. For lawyers, however, ambiguity is much scarier than an extra comma.
Every authority that matters in the legal world favors the serial comma: Strunk and White, Wilson Follett, the Chicago Manual of Style, and Bryan Garner’s Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, just to name a few. The few authorities that disagree are all journalism guides.
Still not convinced? All nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices use the serial comma. Here are three examples:
They have no access to newspapers, magazines, or personal photographs.1
The thrust of this evidence was that, based on factual reports, professional observations, and tests, Clark was psychotic at the time in question, with a condition that fell within the category of schizophrenia.2
The Court’s tripartite structure is something not addressed by the state trial court, the state appellate court, counsel on either side in those proceedings, or the briefs the parties filed with us.3
2. Can I start a sentence with however?
Starting sentences with however is grammatically correct. Many good writers avoid doing so, however, because however is heavier than but. When these writers do use however, they move it into the middle of the sentence to emphasize the contrast:
Smith, however, was unable to compensate Jones.
Smith was unable, however, to compensate Jones.
In the recent Solomon Amendment case, Chief Justice John Roberts uses however six times mid-sentence. At the beginning of his sentences, he prefers but:
In its reply brief, the Government claims that this question is not before the Court because it was neither included in the questions presented nor raised by FAIR. […] But our review may, in our discretion, encompass questions “fairly included” within the question presented, […] and there can be little doubt that granting certiorari to determine whether a statute is constitutional fairly includes the question of what that statute says.4
3. Can I start a sentence with and, but, or yet?
Yes, yes, and yes. Note the following sentences from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:
And that authority, if it exists, can derive only from the powers granted jointly to the President and Congress in time of war.
But they surely gave Congress ample reason to doubt that their application in pending cases would unfold as naturally as the Court glibly assumes.
Yet the mere statement that a military court is a regularly constituted tribunal is of no help in addressing petitioner’s claim that his commission is not such a tribunal.
One small point: When you start a sentence with and, but, or yet, don’t use a comma. The purpose of these punchy conjunctions is to force the reader into the rest of the sentence. A comma does nothing but stop the flow.
4. Can I start a sentence with because?
“You shouldn’t start sentences with because.” Really? It’s true that kids are inclined to say, “I want to stay inside. Because it’s raining.” But great adult writers can—and should—start sentences with because to emphasize cause and effect:
Because each posting of a work is technically a “copy,” each posting is within the reach of the Copyright Act.5
Because all the undervotes that will be manually counted will be counted under this same standard, there is nothing to [Bush’s] equal protection claim.6
Because the team was not afforded funding, equipment, and facilities equivalent to those offered to boys’ teams, petitioner was denied an equal playing field from which to coach.7
Because the deadly weapon Recuenco held was in fact a handgun, the prosecutor might have charged, as an alternative to the deadly weapon enhancement, that at the time of the assault, Recuenco was “armed with a firearm.”8
Because the criminal justice system does not operate perfectly, abolition of the death penalty is the only answer to the moral dilemma the dissent poses.9
- Beard v. Banks (2006).
- Clark v. Arizona (2006).
- Rumsfeld v. FAIR (2006).
- Petitioners’ brief in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003).
- Respondents’ brief in Bush v. Gore (2000).
- Petitioner’s brief in Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. (2006).
- Washington v. Recuenco (2006).
- Kansas v. Marsh (2006).
Ross Guberman is the founder and president of Legal Writing Pro, an advanced legal-writing training and consulting firm. He has conducted more than a thousand programs on three continents for many of the largest and most prestigious law firms and for dozens of state and federal agencies and bar associations. Ross is also a Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George Washington University Law School, where he teaches an advanced seminar on drafting and writing strategy. When you see the logo, you’re reading an article from Legal Writing Pro, where the article originally appeared.