You could probably use more colons. They’re handy: they can help you write concisely and briskly. In this column I’ll discuss several good colon uses and go over some rules. (I won’t address colons in numerical ratios, in citations to a court record or evidentiary documents, in article titles, or for times.)

The colon is a pointer, according to Bryan A. Garner in The Redbook, § 1.21. “Think of it as an arrow,” he says. It introduces explanations, amplifications, and illustrations.

The defendant has two choices: plead guilty or fight.

Lasker got what the appellate team worked hard to obtain: remand for an evidentiary hearing.

The merger agreement was like a puzzle: working it out was as rewarding as seeing it finished.

Of course, the colon also introduces lists and quotations, according to June Casagrande in The Best Punctuation Book, Period at 63-64. Those are some of the most common colon uses in legal writing.

Summary judgment is inappropriate for three reasons:
(1) …
(2) …
(3) …

In Clendenen v. Kirby, Inc., the court refused to apply equitable tolling to state-agency filing deadlines, stating as follows:

[block quotation]

The text before a colon that introduces a block quotation need not do so explicitly (like “stating as follows”) as long as the sense is clear. In fact, the colon itself often makes the sense clear. It says to the reader, “Hey, I’m about to quote something.”

In Clendenen v. Kirby, Inc., the court refused to apply equitable tolling to state-agency filing deadlines:

[block quotation]

You need no colon after words like including and such as, and most consider it an error.

• Not this: The defendant hired three lawyers, including: a transactional attorney and an appellate specialist.
• But this: The defendant hired three lawyers, including a transactional attorney and an appellate specialist.

What structure comes before the colon in regular text? The traditional rule is that a colon should follow only an independent clause. Under that rule, these are wrong:

The testator stated:

The statute provides:

The attachments are:

The direct object or complement that would complete the thought is missing, so it’s not an independent clause. That rule is why we often see these constructions with colons:

The testator made the following statement:

The statute provides as follows:

The attachments are the following:

This traditional rule about independent clauses still applies in formal writing, especially if you know your reader is a punctuation traditionalist. But it’s passing away in most informal writing. And the traditional rule doesn’t apply in one context: Garner says you can ignore it in legal drafting when introducing numbered, lettered, or tabulated subparts. Garner, § 1.28.

The Lessee shall not: (1) paint, wallpaper, alter, or redecorate any portion of the Property; (2) change or install locks; or (3) place signs, displays, or other exhibits on the Property.

The Lessee shall not:
(1) paint, wallpaper, alter, or redecorate any portion of the Property;
(2) change or install locks; or
(3) place signs, displays, or other exhibits on the Property.

What about capitalization? If what follows the colon is not an independent clause, do not capitalize the first word. If what follows the colon is an independent clause, capitalize the first word or don’t, according to your preference, a house style guide, or office practice—but be consistent.

Finally, the colon is appropriate after the greeting or salutation in a formal letter. Casagrande at 65 and Garner, § 1.25.

Informal: Dear Sandra,

Formal: Dear Judge Haynes:

Oh. And one space after colons, if you don’t mind.

If you want to begin a sentence with but, you need no comma after it. If you think beginning a sentence with but is too informal for legal writing, that’s fine. I say you’re missing out on a vigorous, forceful transition word. But my point here is that if you’re going to use but to begin a sentence, you need no comma.

Not these:

• But, such a ban would violate the students’ fundamental rights.
• But, the presence of alcohol would raise the same concerns.
• But, an action for contribution against a responsible party can arise in other ways.

But these:

 

• But such a ban would violate the students’ fundamental rights.
• But the presence of alcohol would raise the same concerns.
• But an action for contribution against a responsible party can arise in other ways.

The only exception arises when a comma is needed for some other reason, as when you need a pair of commas for a parenthetical insertion:

• But, the plaintiff later realized, the money never went to her sister.

 

In English, the infinitive is a verb form constructed with to + the verb root, as in to read, to write, and to edit. The supposed rule against splitting an infinitive says you must not insert an adverb between to and the verb root; thus, these constructions break the rule:

• to carefully read
• to clearly write
• to thoroughly edit.

The no-split “rule” likely began as a misguided effort by early English grammarians to make English like Latin, in which the infinitive is a single word, like scribere (to write) and is therefore unsplit-able. If you can’t split infinitives in Latin, these early writers thought, then you mustn’t in English.

But English isn’t Latin. Manifestum est. In English, we have greater flexibility in placing adverbs to create desired tone and emphasis. So the “rule” is really a suggestion, and many experts say so:

“The principle of allowing split infinitives is broadly accepted as both normal and useful.” Oxford A–Z Guide to English Usage.

“It’s fine to split infinitives…. certainly don’t let anyone tell you it’s forbidden.” Mignon Fogarty in Grammar Girl’s Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing.

“Split infinitives … have long been an effective way to avoid awkward writing.” Jan Venolia in Write Right!

“It is permissible to split an infinitive.” Joan Magat in The Lawyer’s Editing Manual.

“There is no ‘rule’ in English about split infinitives—just the common-sense suggestion that adverbs should be placed where they sound best.” Terri LeClercq in Expert Legal Writing.

Yet after consulting a dozen sources in preparing to write this piece, I will candidly report that the predominant advice is to avoid splitting infinitives when you can. This means avoid splitting unless avoiding the split is awkward. In other words—and this is my opinion—this non-rule still has enough force that even experts who acknowledge there is no such rule advise you to follow the nonrule when you can.

My advice? Trust your ear and split the infinitive whenever splitting sounds natural to you. Although legal writing can’t always be modeled on speech, this is one area where you should write it the way you would say it.

For example, I gladly split the infinitive here:

• He asked me to carefully read the statute

And I would never write this strained, split-infinitive work-around:

• He asked me carefully to read the statute.

(It’s ambiguous, too: what’s careful, the asking or the reading?)

But avoiding the split would be simple and wouldn’t result in awkwardness or loss of emphasis:

• He asked me to read the statute carefully.

That’s a safe course if you think your reader might be a no-splitter.

Consider this awkward un-split infinitive:

• Electronic filing makes it easier for courts to locate instantly and focus on relevant portions of documents.

For me, the phrase to locate instantly and focus on is confusing. It would be better to write this:

• to instantly locate and focus on.

How about this un-split infinitive:

• A hyperlinked brief allows the judge to access quickly identified portions of the record.

I get a miscue here: to access quickly identified portions. What are the “quickly identified portions”? This is better:

• to quickly access identified portions

One more thing. Some writers take the non-rule against splitting infinitives and apply it to all verb phrases, which would mean you must not insert an adverb between an auxiliary verb and the main verb. Applying such a rule would mean verb phrases like will execute, be convinced, and have demonstrated could not be split. So all these would be wrong:

• will faithfully execute
• be easily convinced
• have publicly demonstrated

Please.

Don’t worry about splitting verb phrases. Besides the absence of a genuine rule, there’s the awkwardness of the work-arounds, as in this example I recently read:

• In recent weeks, two officials publicly have demonstrated distrust of Smith.

I hope you’ll agree the split version is more natural:

• In recent weeks, two officials have publicly demonstrated distrust of Smith.

Ultimately, the split infinitive “has become a matter of minor concern,” according to Tom MacArthur in The Oxford Concise Companion to the English Language. It ought to stay that way. If you trust your ear, you’ll probably split more than not, and that’s fine.

After all, there’s no rule against splitting an infinitive.

“The idea that there are exactly two approaches to usage—all the traditional rules must be followed or else anything goes—is the sticklers’ founding myth. The first step in mastering usage is to understand why this myth is wrong.”

Steven Pinker, The Sense of Style 188 (2014).