Office of the 

General Counsel 

GAO 

United States General Accounting Office April 15, 1984 
Office of the 

General Counsel 

Review Guide 

GAO --_- - -.-__- -- I .-- -- _.I__-- 

United States General Accounting Office April 15, 1984 
Preface 
t 

L 

PREFACE 

The Management Committee of the Office of General 

Counsel issues this review guide for the assistance of present and future members of our Office. From time to time the 

guide will state a single preferred course of conduct, but 

in most cases the guide will indicate a preference for, but 

not a requirement to use, particular techniques or approaches to review. Preferences are based on our experience 

and judgment in the production of legal materials within 

OGC. 

The suggestions or recommendations in the review guide 

are most often addressed to the first-line reviewer, but as 

the reader will discover, many recommendations extend to 

other reviewers, and some extend to all. We expect that 

writing attorneys will also read the guide and benefit from 

their consequent knowledge of what we believe to be their 

role in our decision-writing process. 

As the guide is used by OGC, we may conclude that it 

needs to be modified or supplemented or discarded--and we 

will take any such appropriate action as experience dictates. In short, none of our recommendations is intended to 

override what may be common sense in a given situation, or 

i 
t 

4 

to freeze a rule indefinitely if in actual practice it 

proves unworkable. We invite your comments. 

Finally, we are grateful indeed for the work done in 

preparing this guide by Marilynn Eaton of this Office. 

U F. Henry barclay 

Rollee H. Efros 

Seydour Efros 

Richard R. Pierson 

4-I a. d!L Le&& 

Harry R. Van Cleve 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 

PREFACE 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

1 - THE REVIEW PROCESS 

2 - INDIVIDUAL REVIEWERS: 

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

3 - ATTORNEY-REVIEWER RELATIONSHIPS 

4 - ROTATORS AND SUMMER INTERNS 

CONCLUSION 

APPENDIX: UNIFORM CITATION GUIDE 

i 

iii 

1 

7 

23 

31 

43 

47 

iii 
t 

c 

Introduction 
t 

INTRODUCTION 

This guide grows out of the 1983 report of the Task 

Force on Review Policies and Procedures, which recommended 

strongly that the Office of General Counsel develop such a 

reference. As will be seen, the guide is closely based on 

the Task Force's recommendations and uses information developed by the Task Force. Task Force members were Ronald 

Berger (Chairman), Margie Armen, Barry Bedrick, Bert Berlin, 

Bruce Goddard, Donald Guritz, and James Vickers. They have 

richly earned and here receive a formal expression of gratitude from the Management Committee of the Office of the 

General Counsel. 

The Task Force surveyed 30 full- and part-time 

reviewers and found that a large number (40 percent) feel 

that their job has never been clearly defined. What is 

clear is that two different philosophies of review coexist 

in OGC: one that the reviewer's role is to confirm the 

legal adequacy of the attorney's work product, and the other 

that the reviewer is actively to assist the attorney in 

creating that product. We strongly support the latter 

philosophy. 

Accordingly, the purpose of this guide is 

--to define the review process and the 

reviewer's role in that process; 
--to suggest different approaches to 

common review tasks, identifying those 

that the Management Committee believes 

will work best, and ultimately, as 

with the Legal Writing Guide; 

--to improve the quality of our decisions 

and the timeliness with which they are 

produced--goals that we believe to be 

mutually supportive, but that are too 

often seen by both reviewers and 

writing attorneys as mutually 

exclusive. 

Some Task Force recommendations involve management, 

administration, staffing, and training. For example, the 

Task Force suggested development of courses in effective 

writing and review, as well as an introduction to our substantive areas of law for new attorneys. It also recommended establishment of criteria for the selection of new 

reviewers, including personality, ability and willingness to 

work with other professionals, and skill in teaching and 

enhancing the development of attorneys, as well as the 

writing ability that traditionally has been a major factor 

in reviewer selectiorl. We refer to these recommendations 

here, because consideration of and planning for many of them 

4 

2 
are under way, and some will be in practice as this guide is 

issued. On the other hand, we have not discussed such Task 

Force questions as whether OGC management places too little 

or too much emphasis on drafting time and case production, 

since these are policy matters, generally outside the scope 

of a review guide. 

The reviewers who responded to the Task Force survey 

were asked to describe their present duties, to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the review process, and to state how they 

believe these should be changed. We report consensus--or 

lack of consensus--in order to give perspective to our 

recommendations. 

Ye recognize that the review process affects and is 

affected by a multitude of things, including personality, 

experience, skills, and the complexity of the case at hand. 

In addition, there are differences among the OGC sections, 

in some cases dictated by the type of work each is responsible for, so that different approaches, i.e., flexibility, 

may not only be desirable but essential. When, however, we 

feel strongly that one particular approach should be taken, 

and that reviewers who depart from that approach should be 

prepared to justify so doing, we make that requirement 

clear . 

3 
We have organized this guide to deal first with the 

review process. We define the process broadly, to encompass 

evaluation, training, and all other aspects of OGC decision 

writing and review. We believe that the process should 

begin early, and we strongly endorse (but do not require) 

the simultaneous assignment of cases to an attorney and a 

reviewer or the assignment of particular attorneys to 

particular reviewers. In sections where this is not now the 

practice, we recommend that serious consideration be given 

to the advantages of such assignment. And while we do not 

recommend complete elimination of any layer of review or 

abolishment of alternate drafts, we suggest shortcuts for 

appropriate cases. 

Second, we examine the individual reviewer's role, 

distinguishing, when appropriate, between the first-line 

reviewer and upper-level reviewers. We recommend that the 

role of the first-line reviewer be enhanced through opportunities to participate in case management, performance 

appraisals, and promotion recommendations. Many first-line 

reviewers have indicated that they would welcome these 

additional responsibilities. Implementation of our recommendations in this area should have a positive effect on 

reviewer morale (some 20 percent, the Task Force found, are 

4 
c 

unhappy with the job or at least with some aspect of it) and 

a ripple effect so far as attorney morale is concerned. 

A common thread throughout this guide is the attorneyreviewer relationship, the subject of our third chapter. 

We recommend that as a general rule, reviewers should returrl 

drafts to writing attorneys for substantive revision.and 

that, in any case, reviewers should communicate--by means of 

face-to-face discussions--with writing attorneys regarding 

changes made or requested in their drafts. We offer 

"helpful hints" on how to deal with an unacceptable draft or 

a dispirited attorney, with the caveat that only in the best 

of all possible worlds, which OGC admittedly is not, will 

all drafts be acceptable and all attorneys contented. And 

we also urge that the writers of exceptionally high quality 

decisions be praised for their efforts. 

In our concluding chapter, we set forth a number of 

recommendations regarding rotators and summer interns. Ye 

believe their cases should be carefully selected and their 

drafts promptly reviewed. In view of the importance of the 

summer intern program (in 1984 and 1985, OGC expects to hire 

new attorneys entirely from the pool of the prior summer's 

interns), this group deserves special attentiorl. 

5 
For the appendix to this guide, we have revised OGC 

instructions on legal citations, so that reviewers and 

attorneys alike will know what is required, and the several 

sections will be consistent in their use of citations. 

Credit for work in this area goes to Robert Crystal and 

Neil1 Martin-Rolsky. 

6 
f 

Chanter 1 A 

The Review Process 
CHAPTER 1 

THE REVIEW PROCESS 

DEFINITION AND OBJECTIVES 

Webster's defines "process" as a specific, continuous 

action, operation, or series of changes directed to some 

end. The OGC review process, critical and pervasive, is 

exactly that. Yet the end is far more than a Comptroller 

General decision, a response to a congressional request, or 

evaluator assistance. To quote from the Task Force report: 

It is through the review process that the 

quality of our writing and the soundness of 

our legal analyses and conclusions are tested, 

refined, and perfected, and it is through the 

review process that the members of our professional writing staff learn in great detail 

what is expected of them and how well they are 

meeting those expectations. Since this process provides the primary vehicle for interaction between the writing attorneys and all 

those at higher levels of responsibility, it 

has a critical bearing on the work and personal relationships that are formed. In 

7 
short, it is the review process that in large 

measure defines the nature and substance of 

the writing attorney's job and the conditions 

under which that job will be performed: it 

also sets the framework for the attitudes 

developed by the attorneys, both with respect 

to themselves and their own self-esteem and 

with respect to their view of others in the 

Office and of the institution as a whole. 

OGC reviewers, however, do not always see themselves as 

participants in this overall scheme. There is no dispute 

that their task is, at a minimum, to examine the attorney's 

work product and to revise it as necessary to assure that it 

is legally sound and that it meets acceptable writing standards. (The Task Force report indicates that reviewers 

believe a significant number of drafts, as submitted, have 

either major legal problems (38 percent) or major grammatical errors (35 percent).) In addition, even the narrowest 

definition of the review process includes the scrutiny 

required to determine that a proposed decision or memorandum 

is factually accurate and that its tone is appropriate for 

the intended recipient. 

8 
We define the review process broadly, so that it will 

assure our reaching the following objectives: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Every legal conclusion is both supportable and, in fact, supported, 

The decision responds to the issues 

raised or the questions asked. 

The decision is well written and 

readable. 

The decision adds to a cohesive body 

of law that federal officials can 

rely on in making decisions about 

contracts, personnel matters, or 

expenditures. 

The decision reflects GAO-wide positions and policies. 

The decision is consistent with 

those of other OGC sections. 

The decision analyzes all relevant 

points of view before setting forth 

a conclusion. 

In addition, necessary and invaluable byproducts of the 

review process are: 

9 
t 

8. Assistance to the writing attorney 

in improving his or her work product. 

9. Development of information for use in 

performance evaluations. 

Reviewers who responded to the Task Force survey 

believe the first two objectives are most important; using 

grades to evaluate the review process, they gave A and A-, 

respectively, to our effectiveness in meeting these objectives. Reviewers believe, however, that we deserve only C+ 

for numbers 4 and 9, and C- for number 8. 

In other words, reviewers currently place the greatest 

emphasis on the production of legally supportable, responsive decisions, and believe we are achieving this objective; 

they believe we are least effective in areas that are perceived to be less important, particularly the continuing 

education of writing attorneys. 

Although we advocate increased attention to all the 

broad objectives listed above, we especially seek to demolish the perception of some reviewers that assistance to 

writing attorneys is not important. In the short run, the 

time required for review may be increased by the time 

10 
required to provide such assistance; however, if the result 

is more competent writing attorneys and better initial 

drafts, fewer changes will be required during review. In 

theory, the process eventually will consume less rather than 

more time, and the end to which it is directed will be 

achieved. 

WHERE THE PROCESS BEGINS 

Typically, in OGC, the review process begins with the 

attorney's completion of a draft and the submission of that 

draft to a reviewer. Once it has been revised to the 

first-line reviewer's satisfaction, the draft makes its way 

through possibly four additional layers of review (five 

levels were possible when we had a separate Deputy General 

Counsel) before it becomes an official decision of the 

Comptroller General. Although use of these layers of review 

is intended to result in a wholly acceptable decision, we 

believe the process of producing a good decision actually 

should begin much earlier, through prescreening of cases, 

early identification of reviewers, and perhaps through 

permanent assignment of attorneys to reviewers. 

Prescreening of cases 

It is important for both attorney morale and professional development and for efficient review to match an 

11 
assigned case, to the extent possible, with the attorney's 

experience, ability, and interests. His or her existing 

caseload also should be a factor in assignments. Additionally, the even-handed assignment of significant cases to 

attorneys is important to their career advancement. ?rescreening therefore becomes necessary. While too steady a 

diet of grant, computer, or energy cases may make a dull 

attorney, if we can develop a cadre of attorneys and 

reviewers with expertise in particular areas, it will 

greatly facilitate the review process. 

It may not always be possible to determine initially 

what a case involves, but if it has been assigned to an 

inexperienced attorney and then turns out to be more complex 

or sensitive than first appeared, reassignment to another, 

more experienced attorney should be considered. The trick 

here is to discourage the notion that such action is 

necessarily punitive or a sign of lack of faith in the first 

attorney . 

The group approach 

A group approach is an alternative to reassignment and 

a possible approach to some cases initially. Through prescreening, sensitive or multi-issue cases that are suitable 

for work by two or more attorneys can be identified. For 

12 
1 

c 

example, such cases can be approached by one attorney 

researching and the other drafting, or each attorney dealing 

with separable legal issues. When a court or congressional 

committee imposes deadlines, the group approach can help to 

assure timely delivery of the finished product. Any group 

project, of course, requires a close cooperative effort by 

the attorneys involved and perhaps a greater degree of 

ongoing supervision than a comparable independent project. 

Early identification of reviewers 

We believe the review process also can be improved if, 

at the time a case is assigned to a writing attorney, the 

attorney knows who will review that case. Our goals here 

are twofold: pedagogy and case management. They can be 

accomplished either by simultaneous assignment of cases to 

both an attorney and a reviewer or by permanent assignment of 

attorneys to particular reviewers. 

The first approach previously was followed by General 

Government Matters; the second has been used in Special 

Studies and Analysis and in one of the Procurement Law sections for some time and recently has been initiated on a 

trial basis in General Government Matters. Either approach, 

in our opinion, will assist in the quick and accurate production of acceptable decisions by permitting the writing 

13 
attorney to discuss the issues raised and the approach to be 

taken with the reviewer before drafting. 

In the sections that have adopted the system of permanently assigning attorneys to particular reviewers, it works 

well, forging a closer attorney-reviewer relationship than 

previously existed and generally resulting in the preparation 

of drafts that reflect more precisely an agreement between 

the reviewer and writer as to what should be included. Tn 

addition, case management is enhanced because the reviewer is 

aware of the attorney's total workload and can assist in 

setting priorities and deadlines. 

We therefore strongly endorse the concept of early 

identification of reviewers, but do not require it, 

recognizing that in some cases Assistant General Counsels 

believe that it will work better to assign cases to a 

reviewer after a first draft has been completed. We urge 

these Assistants, however, to give serious consideration to 

the advantages of early or permanent assignment, perhaps 

experimenting with one reviewer and one group of attorneys. 

HOW THE PROCESS PROCEEDS 

Levels and layers of review 

Many people, both inside and outside of OGC, believe 

that the several layers of review that our written work goes 

14 
through are excessive. We think that it would be a mistake 

to eliminate any of the layers from the review process 

completely, for example, by making the Assistant or Associate 

General Counsel purely an administrator/manager. In our 

opinion, the intensive, detailed review conducted at the 

lower levels usually is necessary, while very little time is 

absorbed by review at the Associate General Counsel level and 

above, compared with the expertise that is provided. Nevertheless, we think there are shortcuts that can be taken in 

appropriate cases, and these will be discussed below. 

According to the Task Force, attorneys and reviewers 

alike believe the process is often duplicative. The relative 

roles of the various level reviewers are blurred, and upperlevel reviewers are seen as performing the same, rather than 

distinct, functions. A common complaint is that reviewers at 

the upper levels sometimes do no more than second-guess 

preceding-level reviewers or express personal preferences 

when they request or make changes in decision language or the 

treatment of issues. 

In attempting to define reviewers' relative roles more 

clearly, the Task Force concluded that the precise wording 

and organization of drafts should be left to the first-line 

reviewer and the Assistant General Counsel, and that once a 

15 
proposed decision has left this level, revisions should be 

limited to matters of policy or material legal or writing 

deficiencies. 

Ye agree only that this will happen in a perfect 

world. If the first level of review is completely successful, functions will not be duplicated during the review process, and subsequent reviewers will not have to be concerned 

with whether a draft could be better worded or organized. 

But this frequently is not the case, and no one should sign 

off on a draft that contains sloppy thinking or poor 

English, since these may be regarded as "material" def iciencies. And regardless of level, every reviewer can and 

should insist that drafts conform to the Legal Writing 

Guide. 

Alternate drafts 

This brings us to the question of alternate drafts, 

which we would define as two drafts reaching opposite conclusions or using different reasoning. The Task Force found 

that alternates are almost universally favored by reviewers 

and universally disliked by attorneys. It recommended that 

reviewers make a conscious effort to keep the number of 

alternates to a minimum and request them only when they 

believe a draft is ''clearly wrong." In cases that are 

close, the Task Force suggested, instead of insisting on an 

16 
alternate draft, the reviewer should refer the matter to the 

next level with a note or arrange a meeting to discuss the 

different points of view. 

At the level of the writer and the first-line reviewer, 

questions generally should be resolved through discussion, 

although on occasion alternate drafts may be appropriate. 

At upper levels, however, the ability of the Associate or 

Acting General Counsel to choose between two positions is 

considerably enhanced when both are presented for what is 

essentially a point-by-point comparison. Further, the 

"clearly wrong" standard is a difficult one to apply, since 

many cases fall into a gray area where there is no clear 

legal distinction between opposite results, but merely a 

disagreement between attorney and reviewer, or between different levels of reviewers, as to which is better. Perhaps 

a compromise would be to send two finished, albeit not "perfect," drafts forward, so that the next level reviewer can 

more easily focus on the two points of view. 

In summary, while alternate drafts should not be used 

as a technique to avoid decisionmaking or confrontation, we 

do not recommend their abolition. Rather, we affirm the 

right of reviewers to request them when appropriate, and we 

believe that at higher levels of review, they may greatly 

facilitate our decisionmaking process. Finally, we believe 

17 
that as a general rule, the original attorney, rather than 

the reviewer, should write them, using his or her best 

efforts, even if disagreeing with the rationale or the 

result. 

ELIMINATING LAYERS OF REVIEW 

Lowering the level required for signature 

Rather than limiting the role or responsibility of 

upper-level reviewers, we recommend speeding up the review 

process by eliminating some layers of review some of the 

tine. Associates now send appropriate cases directly to the 

Comptroller General for signature, bypassing the General 

Counsel unless the case involves a major policy question, 

overrules or modifies a prior decision, or involves a disagreement at lower levels. Other decisions, such as bid 

protest dismissals and office memorandums are signed by the 

Acting General Counsel. It may be possible to lower the 

level at which additional decisions, for example, routine 

pay, bid protest, or accountable officer cases, are signed, 

and the Comptroller General may be asked to delegate such 

authority. 

Bypassing the first-line reviewer 

Another shortcut that already is being followed 

informally in some sections is identification of drafts of 

18 
decisions needing minimum review for presentation directly 

to the Assistant General Counsel. In some cases, these may 

involve questions where the issues are simple or the law is 

clear; in others the draft of the decision may be exceptionally well written, by an attorney whose work is of a consistently high quality. In such cases, we recommend that 

Assistant General Counsels bypass the first-line reviewer 

and handle the draft of the decision themselves. 

There is no consensus among reviewers who were surveyed 

that all senior attorneys' drafts qualify for this treatment; it depends to a large extent upon whose work is being 

reviewed. An attorney whose legal analysis and conclusions 

are impeccable, €or example, may continue to need the type 

of constructive criticism on grammar, editorial matters, and 

organization that a first-line reviewer generally provides. 

Nevertheless, senior attorneys' drafts of decisions should 

not always need review of the same degree or intensity as 

those of relatively inexperienced attorneys. 

Concurrent review 

Concurrent review also is a possibility. This previously has been done for very high priority cases, with each 

of several levels of review up to and including the Acting 

General Counsel reading and commenting on a draft at the 

same time. No special authority is needed for concurrent 

19 
review, and if it seems appropriate, we encourage greater 

use of it as a means of speeding up the review process where 

speed is unusually important. 

Part-time review 

Part-time review is yet another approach that should be 

considered. In the sections where some attorneys review on 

a part-time basis, they appear to have a greater appreciation of the role of the full-time reviewer. New reviewers 

are, in effect, being trained, and those who seek assignment 

to full-time review positions have an opportunity to demonstrate the skills in interpersonal relations that the Task 

Force believes should be a very substantial factor in 

selection. 

PRIORITIES AND THE REVIEW PROCESS 

A further suggestion directed at speeding up the review 

process is for first-line reviewers to skim drafts as soon 

as they are submitted for review. If the case is a routine 

one, it probably will be susceptible to immediate review, 

and there is no reason why it should wait until the reviewer 

has completed work on an earlier submitted, but considerably 

more complex draft. An initial, prompt look also will serve 

to identify drafts that are obviously deficient, so that 

they can be returned to the writing attorney for revision 

20 
while the facts and issues are still fresh in the attorney's 

mind. 

Pre-review also will enable reviewers to set priorities 

concerning the order in which completed drafts should be 

handled. Certain types of cases must receive immediate 

attention: decisions or letters to Members of Congress; 

those requested by a court or the Department of Justice; and 

in the bid protest area, those in which the contracting 

agency intends to make an award or otherwise act if a decision is not forthcoming within a certain time. In addition, 

these cases should be handled so that they reach the Acting 

General Counsel's desk with a margin of more than a few 

hours before they must be signed. In this regard, see our 

earlier recommendations regarding group drafting and concurrent review. 

While many drafts are handled quickly, others are not 

reached for days or even weeks after they are turned in. 

The Task Force considered setting goals or deadlines for the 

time in which cases should be reviewed. In our opinion, 

this is essentially a case management problem for Assistant 

General Counsels, who need to be sure that first-line 

reviewers alert them to potential delays. When it appears 

that delays will be significant, Assistants should consider 

21 
J 

reassigning cases to other reviewers or personally reviewing 

them. 

Finally, rotator and intern drafts require prompt 

review, so that these individuals will receive feedback 

while they are still in the section where the case 

originated. 

22 
ChaDter 2 

Individual Reviewers: 

Roles And Responsibilities 
CHAPTER 2 

INDIVIDUAL REVIEWERS: ROLES AND REPONSIBILITIES 

Having broadly defined the review process and made 

suggestions for improving it, we turn next to the individual 

reviewer's role in that process. 

THE NARROW VIEW 

In the Task Force survey, reviewers were asked whether 

various tasks should or should not be their responsibility; 

in addition, the questionnaire provided for an "if necessary" answer. Specifically, reviewers were asked whether 

they should do the following: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Read the entire record or file. 

Read all cited cases. 

Research independently. 

Shepardize cited cases. 

Check citations against the Harvard or 

OGC citator. 

Check drafts for conformity to the Legal 

Writing Guide. 

Make editorial changes. 

Proofread. 

23 
, 

9. Defend the proposed resolution through 

upper levels of review. 

10. Meet with and advise the writing attorney 

of strong or weak points in the draft. 

Of the reviewers who believe certain tasks should be 

performed in every case, the greatest number (22 out of 30) 

feel it is their responsibility to defend the proposed decision through upper levels of review. At the opposite 

extreme, many believe it should never be their responsibility to Shepardize or proofread. More than half believe that 

they should read the record in its entirety; in addition, a 

substantial number believe their duties include reading all 

cited cases and checking drafts for conformity with the 

Legal Writing Guide. Of the tasks that reviewers believe 

should be performed only when necessary, the vast majority 

list independent research, editorial changes, and meeting 

with writing attorneys. 

What we glean from all this is that most reviewers feel 

that they should perform--and actually are performing--most 

tasks at their discretion, depending on the degree of their 

confidence in the writing attorney or other circumstances 

that lead them to believe a task is necessary or 

unnecessary. 

24 
We agree with this approach. We believe, however, that 

certain tasks are primarily within the writing attorney's 

purview, and that the first-line reviewer's job is to make 

sure that the attorney regularly performs them. For example, in the case of a new attorney, a rotator, or a summer 

intern, this may mean checking and double checking to make 

sure that cases have been Shepardized, that citations are 

accurate and complete, and that the final is proofread. If 

the reviewer and the attorney each assume that the other has 

performed these housekeeping-type chores, substantive errors 

may go undetected. 

Alternatively, when the attorney can be relied upon to 

perform these chores, the reviewer is left free to read the 

record and the cited cases, making sure they stand for the 

proposition for which they are cited and/or are distinguished as appropriate. Interestingly, attorneys themselves 

appear to agree that at least the first-line reviewer should 

read the record in its entirety. 

Regardless of level, we expect a reviewer to delve into 

the record when he or she believes, for example, that the 

question being answered could not have been the one that was 

asked or that the agency could not possibly have acted so 

stupidly. At this point, the burden shifts to the writing 

attorney to clarify, revise, or defend the draft. 

25 
THE EXPANDED VIEW 

Reviewers who believe their role is merely to confirm 

the attorney's work product probably also believe that they 

have fully performed if they accomplish most of the tasks 

listed above or see that they have been done by the writing 

attorney. We believe a reviewer's role extends well beyond 

this narrow definition. 

A broad definition of the review process requires a 

similarly expansive definition of the reviewer's role--one 

that includes managerial functions for even the first-line 

reviewer. Many in this group, the Task Force survey indicated, feel that their unique status--neither writing 

attorney nor manager--is not sufficiently appreciated or 

recognized (some 20 percent are unhappy with at least some 

aspect of the job). Most first-line reviewers would welcome 

additional managerial responsibilities. 

The Task Force asked whether reviewers currently perform, or believe they should be responsible for performing, 

any of the following management-type functions: 

1. Development of skills and abilities of 

writing attorneys, using the review process as a means of continuing education 

and training. 

26 
2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

a. 

Similar education and training of rotators and summer interns. 

Participation in performance appraisals 

and promotion decisions. 

Supervision of writing attorneys. 

Assignment of cases. 

Supervision of support staff. 

Development of training programs. 

Recruitment and selection of employees. 

Currently, the majority of first-line reviewers have 

little or no responsibility for such tasks as supervision 

of support staff and recruitment and training, and the 

reviewers expressed little interest in increasing their participation in these activities. It appears, however, that 

most reviewers would welcome an opportunity to assist in the 

informal education, training, and evaluation of writing 

attorneys. In addition, well over half of the first-line 

reviewers surveyed believe they should have some responsibility for the supervision of attorneys and assignment of 

cases. These opportunities will be made available; ways of 

doing so are discussed in the following paragraphs. 

Education and training of writing attorneys 

Outside of formal courses and seminars, the informal 

education and training of writing attorneys can be (and 

27 
historically has been) accomplished in two ways: through 

discussions during the period when decisions are being 

researched and drafted and through regular and effective 

communication concerning changes requested or made in 

drafts. As indicated earlier, we think the one attorney/one 

reviewer approach increases opportunities for discussion 

during the research and drafting stage. This also should be 

accomplished, however, by reviewers having an open-door 

policy and being willing to talk to writing attorneys. 

In chapter 3, dealing with attorney-reviewer relationships, we further discuss communication concerning 

changes; what we are attempting to convey here is primarily 

that informal education and training of writing attorneys is 

most surely a component of the reviewer's job. 

Case assignment and management 

If each writing attorney is permanently assigned to a 

first-line reviewer, these reviewers may gain a greater role 

in case assignment and case management. In Procurement Law 

11, for example, the Assistant General Counsel assigns cases 

to a reviewer who in turn makes the assignment to a writing 

attorney. The reviewer also reads (or attempts to read) all 

incoming correspondence before it is forwarded to the attorney. The Assistant in this case believes the system permits 

28 
discovery of potential problems earlier than otherwise would 

be possible and gives reviewers an opportunity to become 

familiar with the issues involved during the research and 

drafting stage. In addition, the first-line reviewer 

assumes greater responsibility for case development and for 

followup if an alternate draft or changes are requested. 

Performance appraisals and promotions 

As indicated above, many first-line reviewers also 

would like to be more fully involved in the preparation of 

performance appraisals and promotion recommendations. While 

these are primarily management's responsibility, it is the 

first-line reviewer who is most familiar with each attorney's unvarnished style and with the effort and spirit that 

each brings to his or her work. Through scrutinizing 

drafts, these reviewers see how well an attorney is doing, 

what his or her strengths and weaknesses are, and the extent 

to which each shows improvement. The information that they 

provide to an Assistant or Associate General Counsel can be 

invaluable in making decisions on evaluation and promotion, 

as well as in the selection of attorneys for training, 

special projects, and awards. 

We conclude that first-line reviewers should contribute 

to the evaluation of writing attorneys, but that the manner 

29 
in which they do so--whether formally, making written 

recommendations, or informally--is less important than 

recognition of this fact. 

Reviewers as writers 

In addition to more managerial responsibilities, 

reviewers' roles can be enriched by permitting them to 

return to writing, thus exercising the skills that led to 

their selection in the first place. One approach is to do 

so on an occasional basis, as workload permits or when a 

particularly complex case requires the degree of expertise 

that a reviewer can bring to it. Another approach would be 

to provide for 3- to -6 month sabbaticals, during which the 

reviewer would resume his or her former status as a writing 

attorney. A senior writing attorney could substitute as a 

reviewer during this period, with attendant advantages to 

that individual. If reviewers would welcome temporary writing assignments, we urge that they request them. Assistant 

General Counsels should be alert to these desires and 

accommodate them whenever possible. 

30 
Chapter 3 

Attorney-Reviewer 

Relationships 
CHAPTER 3 

ATTORNEY-REVIEWER RELATIONSHIPS 

Too often, the attorney-reviewer relationship consists 

of a vicious cycle that develops because writing attorneys 

expect automatic changes during the review process. Thus, 

--anticipating changes, the writing attorney 

applies little effort to the draft, and 

consequently it is a long way from what the 

writer regards as a finished product: 

--because the draft is legally inadequate or 

does not reflect the reviewer's stylistic 

preferences, or is simply sloppy and imprecise, the reviewer changes it; 

--because of time pressures or lack of faith 

in the writing attorney's ability to 

improve, the reviewer gives the attorney 

little feedback; and 

--the writing attorney does not develop the 

skills or the spirit necessary to prevent 

the entire cycle from repeating itself. 

Although sometimes relationships are strained by 

personality or ego clashes, many problems develop because 

31 
the attorney does not understand changes or appreciate why 

deficiencies have been found in a draft. This reflects the 

two different review styles shown in the Task Force survey: 

some reviewers rewrite much of what they are given, seeming 

to lose sight of the distinction between reviewing and 

rewriting, while others make very few changes. The fact 

that different reviewers take different approaches to the 

same attorney's work has a further unsettling effect on the 

latter. 

This lack of uniformity in what reviewers do and the 

resulting lack of understanding of changes by writing attorneys lead to our next recommendation: that as a general 

rule, drafts requiring reorganization or substantive revision should be returned at least once to the writing attorney. (If the reviewer wishes to make a point about a minor 

grammatical error, returning the draft to the writing attorney may also be appropriate.) In any event, we believe that 

first-line reviewers should communicate--regularly and 

effectively--with writing attorneys regarding changes made 

or requested in their drafts, and that this communication 

should be face-to-face. 

32 
PROBLEM DRAFTS 

Who makes changes and why 

In the Task Force survey, reviewers were asked to indicate how they handled problems in the more than 2,500 drafts 

reviewed during the past year. Of these, approximately 38 

percent were seen as having major legal problems, such as 

inadequate analysis, insufficient support, or improper citations, and approximately 35 percent as having major editorial or grammatical problems. (The greatest number of 

problems were found in drafts by grades GS-12 to GS-14 attorneys: this, however, may reflect the fact that rotators 

and interns are assigned simpler cases, with less potential 

for error, and senior attorneys are better able to cope with 

the complex ones, thus making fewer errors.) Reviewers also 

were asked which of the following actions they took when 

encountering problems: 

--Meet personally with the writing attorney to 

discuss the case. 

--Return the draft at least once to the 

writing attorney with specific instructions 

as to revision, including 

(1) reorganize or change the order of 

presentation, 

(2) beef up with additional analyses or 

citations, 

33 
(3) tone down or qualify, 

(4) delete facts or analyses, and/or 

(5) reach a different conclusion, 

--Reassign the case to another attorney. 

--Personally rewrite all or a major portion 

of the decisiorl. 

--Discuss the case with other reviewers. 

--Notify the Assistant General Counsel. 

Overall, there is little consistency among reviewers in 

handling of problem drafts. neletion of detailed recitations of fact or reasoning appears to be common; reassignment of cases to other attorneys is rare. Reviewers 

sometimes return drafts to the writing attorney, and when 

they do so, it is slightly more likely to be for a revision 

reaching the same conclusion than for one reaching a different conclusion. Most reviewers (25 of 30) admit to 

rewriting all or major portions of decisions personally at 

least some of the time. 

Returning drafts to attorneys 

We think that unless time simply does not permit, when 

a draft needs substantial revision, the first-line reviewer 

should let the attorney know, through face-to-face discussion, what the problem is. The two can talk about how it 

can be remedied, and the attorney, at the same time, will 

34 
gain an opportunity to discuss the reasons why he or she took 

the original approach and to persuade the reviewer that 

changes are not necessary. The attorney then can make 

agreed-upon revisions within an agreed-upon time. This is, 

in short, a continuation of the team approach that in our 

opinion should begin with the simultaneous assignment of 

cases to an attorney and a reviewer or the assignment of 

particular attorneys to particular reviewers. 

When upper-level reviewers return drafts, the most usual 

approach is a note to the reviewer immediately below the note 

writer in the chain of command. In many cases, this is the 

only practicable approach--the Acting General Counsel's many 

other duties, for example, generally would preclude his 

strolling down to the writing attorney's office to discuss a 

case. In addition, intervening levels, i.e., Assistant and 

Associate General Counsels, need to be made aware of whatever 

questions or comments the draft has raised. Regardless of to 

whom an upper-level reviewer's note is addressed, however, we 

think the draft ultimately should be returned to the writing 

attorney for revision. 

Here the support of drafts through upper levels of 

review becomes important. In the absence of a qualifying 

note, if a reviewer has signed off on a proposed decision, he 

or she has indicated agreement with and approval of its 

D 

35 
contents. TJnless the next level reviewer makes a point the 

reviewer simply has not considered or an argument compelling 

enough to cause the reviewer to change his or her mind, the 

reviewer has a duty to support as well as explain that 

draft. The extent to which and the manner in which this 

should be done will vary from case to case, but in any 

event, we believe the writing attorney also should be 

included in these disdussions. See our communications 

recommendation, below. 

9n rare occasions, there may be compelling reasons not 

to return a draft to the writing attorney: when, as above, 

time is of the essence or when, in the reviewer's judgment, 

the attorney is unlikely to accomplish what the reviewer has 

in mind. Tn some instances, the writing attorney may be 

tied up with another, higher priority case. Then the firstline reviewer is not precluded from personally revising the 

draft, writing an alternate, or reassigning or requesting 

that the case be reassigned to another attorney. 

Reqular and effective communication 

Our correlating recommendation, that f irst-line 

reviewers communicate regularly and effectively with writing 

attorneys concerning changes made or requested in their 

drafts, is a "must." Regardless of who makes the changes, 

36 
we think there should be face-to-face discussions that may, 

if necessary, be supplemented with notes to the file. 

The Task Force found that when reviewers returned 

drafts to writing attorneys, some communicated only by note 

(even though the attorney's office was only two doors away); 

others discussed a case with the attorney but kept and 

revised the draft themselves. Still other reviewers simply 

made changes without bothering either to return the draft or 

to discuss it first, apparently feeling that review is 

accomplished more efficiently this way and that the writing 

attorney will somehow take note of the changes made and/or 

learn by example. This last approach is unacceptable. 

Except for face-to-face discussions, we do not advocate 

any specific approach. Each first-line reviewer will 

develop, through experience, techniques for discussion that 

are compatible with his or her own personality and the 

attorney's capabilities. With one attorney, a laundry list 

of necessary revisions will be most effective: with another, 

a Socratic approach, or a suggestion that he or she pursue a 

line of cases that may have been overlooked, may be more 

productive. (Suggestions for additional research, however, 

should be as specific as possible. We have all dealt with 

the long-time reviewer who is convinced--indeed clearly 

37 
remembers--that there is a relevant case somewhere out 

there, but who cannot identify the case, the author, or even 

the approximate date when it was written. In the absence of 

reasonably specific information, this may be the time when 

the reviewer should take to Juris or Index and Files and 

independently research the issue.) 

Whatever approach is used, the objective is the same: 

to be sure that the attorney knows why each change is made 

or requested, and thus learns what OGC expects in the way of 

writing and organization of decisions. While writing attorneys generally should know how to identify and deal with 

issues, how to examine a case record, and how to go beyond 

general legal principles and relate them to a specific set 

of facts, it is through the review process that these skills 

are honed. 

The reasons for some changes should be selfexplanatory, and reviewers should not need to make other 

explanations more than once. Thus, while it may be necessary to point out to an attorney who complains about a redpenciled draft that most of the changes are from the passive 

to active voice preferred by the Legal Writing Guide, we do 

not think it is unreasonable to expect prompt improvement 

following such discussions, 

38 
If reviewers make major deletions, it may be because 

the material is of a preliminary jurisdictional or procedural nature. Although the attorney needs to make this type 

of analysis, and should be praised for doing so, the result 

does not necessarily belong in a decision. On the other 

hand, if the reviewer believes that a fact is irrelevant or 

an issue is a red herring, it is part of the training 

process to point this out to the writing attorney. 

Attorneys are often at sea when they find decision 

language that appears to fit the facts and legal issues of 

the case at hand and, after incorporating it into a draft, 

discover it changed. In some instances, the reviewer will 

have done so because the incorporated language is archaic 

and our present style less legalistic. In others, however, 

the reviewer may be looking for an innovative approach or 

for a clearer explanation of a fuzzy concept than we previously have given. When the reviewer believes that a decision requires narrowing, broadening, or distinguishing of a 

general legal principle, the attorney is entitled to an 

explanation and an opportunity to draft what is sought. 

Here again, if the reviewer is identified early, any innovative approach or overruling can be discussed during the 

research and drafting stage, and attorneys may even begin to 

suggest such changes. 

39 
The manner in which reviewers discuss changes and the 

tone of the discussion are equally as important as their 

substance. Some reviewers may be able to convey their message during an informal discussion in the hall or at lunch; 

others may succeed because they make a point of holding discussions in the attorney's office, rather than their own. 

Simply moving to the attorney's turf appears to smooth and 

make relationships less adversarial. 

Regardless of when or where the discussions are held, 

reviewers should respect the importance of the matter to the 

writing attorney, who has invested time and effort to produce the draft now being criticized. Reviewers generally 

should be as familiar with the facts and issues involved as 

they expect the attorney to be, and should confine the discussion to the problems apparent in the case at hand. To 

the extent possible, we suggest that discussions be uninterrupted and that humor be used judiciously, so that it is not 

interpreted as sarcasm or as a sign that the reviewer does 

not take the attorney's work seriously. 

Above all, reviewers should strive to be as impartial 

as possible, criticizing the logic, organization, or argumentation in a draft, but never the writing attorney as an 

individual. In this regard, we suggest that reviewers also 

40 
refrain from criticizing particular attorneys or their work 

in discussions with others--somehow, the substance of such 

discussions always finds its way back to the attorney in 

question, and the relationship suffers accordingly. The 

only exception to the rule against talking about writing 

attorneys is in the context of a performance appraisal, 

where criticism obviously is appropriate and there is an 

element of due process in that the reviewer or Assistant 

General Counsel also will be talking to the attorney. 

And just as other staff members are expected to check 

their outside interests and/or personal problems at the door 

and to give good measure during their working day, personal 

problems should not lead reviewers to substitute the writing 

attorney for the proverbial cat. While we would like to 

believe that most reviewers are charming, friendly, supportive, and professional at all times in their dealings with 

attorneys, according to an OGC consultant, many attorneys 

regard the tone of the feedback they receive, when and if 

they receive it, as caustic and offensive. Our message here 

comes from the code of conduct for a "civilized" reviewer, 

developed by a group of Procurement Law attorneys: sarcasm, 

harassment, threats, and all other forms of gratutitous 

criticism and insults are strictly prohibited. 

41 
One final word: it is really not amiss to call in or 

go see a writing attorney simply to praise him or her for a 

good job well done. We presume that even the reviewers who 

are hardest to please are, from time to time, pleased by the 

quality of a draft. Why not say so? 

42 
Chapter 4 

Rotators And 

Summer Interns 
CHAPTER 4 

ROTATORS AND SUMMER INTERNS 

While the OGC rotation system as we previously have 

known it has been vastly changed by a reduction in the number of rotating attorneys, for those who are here, the system provides an introduction to the work of the several 

sections and an overall impression of OGC as an institution 

and a bureaucracy. We have considered, but do not recom-- 

mend, either shortening or abandoning the rotation period. 

Rather, we stress that reviewers at all levels should pay 

closer attention than they previously have to these 

attorneys. 

As for summer interns, in view of their importance as 

a pool for full-time attorneys (in the foreseeable future 

OGC expects to hire only from this group), prescreening and 

assignment of appropriate cases to interns and communication 

during the review process will have a direct impact on the 

composition of our future professional staff. 

CASE ASSIGNMENT 

If prescreening of cases is important for ordinary 

attorneys, it is vitally important for rotators and interns, 

43 
so that these individuals will be given an opportunity to 

handle a representative sample of cases. Rotators do not 

obtain meaningful insights into the areas of law a section 

handles if they are given, for example, only bid +retests 

that are dismissed on procedural grounds or summarily 

denied: they need cases challenging enough so that their 

research and writing skills can be evaluated at the end of 

their sojourn in a section. On the other hand, they should 

not be assigned cases so complex or specialized that, on the 

basis of limited experience, they simply cannot be expected 

to cope, and their efforts will largely have to be rewritten. In sections that have little control over the number 

and type of incoming cases, those that are suitable for 

rotators and interns should be reserved for this group or 

other steps taken to assure that there is work ready for the 

individual as soon as he or she arrives in a new section. 

All OGC sections have implemented, and we strongly 

recommend continuation of, the mentor system for rotators 

and summer interns. We look for bright, friendly, outgoing 

individuals who will take the mentor's responsibilities 

seriously, introducing rotators and interns to section members, showing them where to find supplies, the cafeteria, 

and the Credit Union, and providing continuing support 

during their entire time in a section. 

44 
c 

In at least one OGC section, part-time reviewers are 

responsible for rotators and summer interns, so that the 

mentor and reviewer roles are combined. These part-time 

reviewers prescreen cases, discuss issues with rotators and 

interns during the research and drafting stage, and provide 

initial review of their drafts. On an experimental basis, 

this system has worked well; it has resulted in more usable 

rotator and intern drafts than previously, and it has 

greatly assisted in the continuing education of the rotators 

and interns. We suggest that other sections try it. 

ROTATOR REVIEW 

Finally, as noted above, whether done by a full- or 

part-time reviewer, prompt review of rotator and intern 

cases is essential, so that these individuals will have 

feedback and can be evaluated while they are still in a 

section. 

45 
46 
Conclusion 
CONCLUSION 

Our aim here has not been to tell reviewers "how to" 

review. Our aim has been to synthesize the findings and the 

recommendations of the Task Force and to provide guidance, 

for the first time OGC-wide, as to what is and is not expected of reviewers and, at least by implication, what is 

expected of writing attorneys. 

To summarize, we recommend that all sections of OGC: 

--Define the review process broadly, so that 

it encompasses evaluation, training, and 

and all other aspects of decision writing 

and review. 

--Begin the review process early, with prescreening of cases before assignment to 

attorneys and, to the extent Assistant 

General Counsels believe workable, with 

early identification of reviewers and/or 

with permanent assignment of particular 

attorneys to particular reviewers. 

--Enhance the role of the individual reviewer, 

particularly the first-line reviewer, with 

the addition of managerial-type 

responsibilities. 

47 
--Improve attorney-reviewer relationships in 

two ways : 

(1) by returning drafts at least once to 

writing attorneys for revision, and 

(2) by communicating--regularly, effectively, and on a face-to-face 

basis--with writing attorneys regarding changes made or requested in 

drafts . --Pay greater attention to rotators and summer 

interns through assignment of appropriate 

cases and prompt review. 

These recommendations, if followed, should help achieve 

the ultimate goal stated in our introduction: to improve 

the quality of our decisions and the timeliness with which 

they are produced. 

48 
Appendix 

Uniform Citation Guide 
I 

APPENDIX: GAO/OGC UNIFORM CITATION GUIDE 

I. GENERAL COMMENTS 

A. Official Citator - This Guide, as supplemented by the "Harvard Citator" (Harv. L. 

Rev. Ass'n, A Uniform System of Citation, 13th ed. 19811, constitutes the official 

citator for the GAO Office of General Counsel. It supersedes OGC Instruction No. 

74-6, Sept. 13, 1974, and all other previous guidance on citation practices. OGC 

citation and related practices, including abbreviation, quotation, and italicization 

formats, shall conform to the rules contained in this Guide. However, the provisions 

of this Guide do not apply to audit reports and other non-legal materials. Citations 

in those documents are governed by chapter 5 of the GAO Editorial Style Guide. 

The materials in this Guide give examples of commonly used citation forms. Some of 

these materials have been reprinted from the Harvard Citator in order to provide a 

handy reference guide to facilitate your use of that book and your compliance with 

its rules. Additional information about these sample citation forms may be found by 

referring to that publication under the rule numbers indicated by each example. When 

in doubt, consult the index. Note that the 13th edition of the Harvard Citator represents a great expansion over the previous editions, and makes many changes to the 

previous editions. (All OGC attorneys and secretaries should review page v of the 

13th edition which gives an excellent summary of the most significant changes.) 

0. Rule of Reason - As noted on page iv of the Harvard Citator, legal citations should 

(1) identify the source being cited, (2) distinguish it from other sources, and 

(3) help the reader to locate the source. The forms prescribed by that publication 

and this Guide should generally meet those goals. However, when unusual circumstances make these sample forms confusing or otherwise inadequate, a different citation form may be used. 

C. Revised titles of the U.S. Code - Generally, citations should be made to sections of 

the revised titles of the U.S. Code, rather than the superseded versions. 00 not indicate in the citation that the title has been revised if it has been (or is about to 

be) published in the most recent edition of the U.S. Code or Code supplement. However, whenever it is necessary or useful to do so, a parenthetical citation to a former section number or an explanation indicating the revision may be provided. FC)r 

example: 31 U.S.C. S 3302 (1982) (formerly 31 1J.S.C. § 484 (1976)). 

D. Comptroller General Decisions - Always check to see if the GAO decision that you are 

citing has been published or designated for publication in the Comp. Gen. volumes. 

If so, cite that decision (as indicated in this guide) to the Comp. Gen. Be sure 

when citing GAO decisions to include a cite to a recent published Comp. Gen. decision 

(if any) which supports that proposition. This practice is necessary to determine 

whether your decision should be published in the Comp. Gen. volumes. 

E. String Citations - Generally, "striny" citations should be avoided. However, should 

it be necessary or useful to provide a string citation, do not use id. in place of 

Comp. Gen. For example: 

44 Comnp. Gen. 623 (1965); 34 Comp. Gen. 577 (1955); 8 Comp. Gen. 103 (1928). 

not: 

44 Comp. Gerl. 623 (1965); 34 - id. 577 (1955); 8 id. 103 (1928). 

This prohibition should not be confused with the proper use of id. to cite to "the 

immediately preceding authority," as discussed in Rule No. 4.1 of the Harvard Citator. 

F. Multiple File Numbers - When citing GAO decisions with more than two file numbers, 

cite only to the first number, followed by "et al." For example: 

Aero Tube and Connector Cs, B-210410 et al., 4pr. 25, 1983, 83-1 C.P.0. qI 453. 

not: 

Aero Tube and Connector Co., B-210410, B-210449, B-210450, B-210451, Apr. 25, 

1983, 83-1 C.P.0. 11 453. 

G. Subsequent Citations b Short Forms - As an alternative to the "hereafter" citation 

format (examples of which are set out elsewhere in this Guide), the document to be 

cited may be introduced in the text or in the initial citation by its full name, 
followed 

example: 

Page A2 d 

by a parenthetical showing how it will be referred to subsequently. For 

The 

the 

Federal Procurement Requlations - (PPR) set standards which qenerally - -- qovern 

procurement process. PPR, 41 C.F.R. 4 1-1.002 (1983). One portion, for 

example, contains rules that govern negotiated procurements. FPR, 41 C.P.R. 

§ 1-3. 

There are regulations which set standards that generally govern the federal procurement process. Federal Procurement Regulations (FPR), 41 C.F.R. § 1-1.002 

(1983). One portion, for example, contains rules that govern negotiated procurements. FPR, 41 C.F.R. § 1-3. 

Using the "hereafter' format, this passage might read as follows: 

There are regulations which set standards that generally govern the federal procurement process. Federal Procurement Regulations, 41 C.P.R. S 1-1.002 (1983) 

(hereafter cited as FPR). One portion, for example, contains rules that govern 

negotiated procurements. FPR, 41 C.F.R. S 1-3. 

Some of the examples given in this Guide (under the column entitled Subsequent Cita- 

- tion) include "pinpoint" cites used to direct the reader to particular pages or paragraphs. Subsequent citations to the entire authority, rather than to particular 

pages or paragraphs, should (i) omit the pinpoint information (i.e., the phrase begining with "at" and ending after the parallel citation, if any), and (ii) insert the 

phrase 'I, supra," if it is not already included in the citatioq. 

11. CITATIONS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE HARVARD CITATOR 

A. GAO DECISIONS 

Note: "Published" decisions should always be cited to Decisions of the Comptroller 

General (Comp. Gen.). "Unpublished" decisions should be cited by file number 

and date. Some decisions are named after persons or companies. Citations to 

those decisions may include that name. However, do not include the phrase 

"Matter of." Decisions issued prior to GAO's adoption of the "Matter of" format should be cited in the same manner as unnamed decisions. Parallel citations to the Comptroller General Procurement Decisions (C.P.D.). or other 

looseleaf services, should be provided, when available, I after-the official citatioq. For example: 

Document Initial Citation 

Decisions scheduled for B-208422, July 21, 1983, 62 Comp. 

Publication Gen. . . Named decisions 

Parallel citations 

IJnnamed decisions 

William e. Wisinger, 59 Comp. 

Gen. 365 (1980). 

Electron Research, Inc., B-179096, 

Jan. 28, 1974. 

Miles Metal Corp., 54 Comp. Gen. 750 

(1975), 75-1 C.P.D. 11 145. 

Allstate Guards and Security Service, - Inc., 8-213284, Nov. 16, 1983, 83-2 

C.P.D. 11 576. 

Fitts Construction Co., 8-211514, 

Aug.. 19, 1983, 62 Comp. Gen. --, 

83-2 C.?.D. 11 190. 

60 Comp. Gen. 459 (1981). 

R-90972, Feb. 8, 1950. 

Subsequent Citation 

5-208422, 62 Comp. 

Gen. , supra. 

William P. Wisinger, 

59 Comp. Gen. at 366. 

Electron Research, Inc., 

8-179096, supra, at 2. 

Miles Metal Corp., 

54 Comp. Gen. at 751, 75-1 

C.P.r). 11 145 at 3. 

Allstate Guards and Security Service, Inc., 

8-213284, supra, 83-2 

C.P.D.11 576 at 2. 

Fitts Construction Co., 

62 Comp. Gerl. at ---, 

83-2 C.P.D. !I 190 at 3. 

60 Comp. Gen. at 463. 

R-90972, supra, at 2. 
k 

Page A3 

B. LEGAL MEMORANDA & OTHER OGC DOCUMENTS 

Note: Cite OGC Instructions by number and date. Cite the various OGC manuals by 

their name, title (if so organized), page (chapter-page), and year of publication. Non-decisional materials should be cited like "unpublished" decisions, 

but the text should make clear that the document is a development letter, private inquiry, or other non-decisional material. Office memoranda should be 

cited by the file number, followed by the designation "-O.M.," and the date. 

(Office memoranda are legal memoranda that have been signed by or on behalf of 

the General Counsel, or someone of greater rank.) Legal memoranda that have 

been signed by a person of lesser rank than the General Counsel should be cited by the file number, followed by the designation "-SSA," "-GGM," "-PLM I," 

"-PLM 11," "-PL I," or "-PL 11," as appropriate, and the date. When subsequent citations to one of these documents is anticipated, be sure to provide a . parenthetical explanation of the short form citation, using either the "hereafter" format, or one of the alternative formats discussed in section number 

I(G) of this Guide. For example: 

Document Initial Citation Subsequent Citation 

Civilian Personnel Law GAO, Civilian Personnel Law Manual, GAO-CPLM, tit. 11, at 4-4. 

Manual tit. 11, at 4-3 (1983). 

Government Contract GAO, Government Contract Principles GAO-GCP at 3-20. 

Principles at 3-19 (1978). 

Military Personnel Law GAO, Military Personnel Law Manual GAO-MPLM at 3-20. 

Manual at 3-19 (1983). 

OGC Instructions GAO, Office of the General Counsel GAO/OGC Instr., No. 74-6. 

Instructions, No. 74-6, Sept. 13, 1974. 

Office memoranda B-174757-O.M., Feb. 9, 1972. B-174757--O.M., supra. 

Other legal memorenda B-213365-SSA, Jan. 18, 1984. B-213365-SSA, supra. 

Principles of Federal GAO, Principles of Federal Appropria- GAO-PFAL at 3-20. 

Appropriations Law tions Law at 3-19 (1982). 

Transportation Law Manual GAO, Transportation Law Manual at 3-7 GAO-TLM st 3-8. 

(1978). 

S amp1 e 'I her e a f t e r I' 

parenthetical 

GAO, Office of the General Counsel 

Instructions, No. 74-6, Sept. 13, 1974 

(hereafter cited as GAO/OGC Instr., No. 74-6). 

C. OTHER GAO DOCUMENTS 

Note: The documents listed below should be cited as indicated, whenever possible. 

However, some of the citation information (publication dates, for example) is 

not uniformly available for these documents. When information included in 

these sample citations is unavailable or inadequate, any other information 

which would help to identify and locate the cited document should be provided 

in the citation. When subsequent citations to one of these documents is anticipated, be sure to provide a parenthetical explanation of the short form citation, using either the "hereafter" format, or one ofthe alternative formats 

discussed in section number I(G) of this Guide. For example: 

Document 

Administrative Orders1 

Audit Reports 

'I Bi 11 Comments" 

Initial Citation 

GAO, Administrative Orders, 

No. 13-Rev., at 3 (Auq. 24, 1948 

Subsequent Citation 

GAO-A0 No. 13-Rev. 

GAO, Federal Agencies Negligent n GAO/AFMD-82-32 at 9. 

Collecting Debts Arising from Audits 

at 9 (AFMD-82-32, B-200473, Jan. 22, 

1982). 

B-202175, Nov. 16, 1983 (comments on B-202175, supra, at 3. 

H.R. 2875, 98th Cong., 1st Sess.). 
Page A4 

C. OTEER GAO DOCUMENTS (COnt.) 

Document Initial Citation Subsequent Citation 

Comprehensive Audit GAO, Comprehensive Audit Manual, GAO-CAM, pt. I, at 3-1. 

Manual2 pt. I, at 3-1 (Feb. 1976). 

Orders1 No. 1.17 para. 53 (TM NO. 117, 

Comptroller General's GAO, Comptroller General's Orders, GAO-CGO No. 1.17 para. 53. 

Mar. 25, 1969). 

GAO Review M. Armen, Equal Pay - Fair Play, 18 18 G.A.O. Rev. at 20. 

G.A.O. Rev. 16, 19 (Winter 1980). 

GAO Management News "Security Secrets, I' 10 G.A .O. Mgmt . 10 G.A.O. Mgmt. News 

News No. 43 at 6 (July 5, 1983). No. 43 at 6. 

(Oct. 1981). 

General Policy Manual GAO, General Policy Manual at 5-3 GAO-GPM at 5-3. 

General Regulations3 GAO, General Regulations, No. 72, at 3 GAO-GR, No. 72, at 3. 

(June 21, 1929), reprinted in 8 Comp. 

Gen. 706 (1929). 

Joint GAO-Treasury Joint GAO and Treasury Department Regu- GAO-TD Reg. No. 4-Rev. 

Regula t ions4 lation No. 4-Rev. (Supp. No. 1, Jan. 10, 

1957), reprinted in GAO Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance of Federal 

Agencies, app. B, at 7-121. 

Office Orders1 

Operations Manual 

GAO, Office Orders, No. 6 (Aug. 22, GAO-00, No. 6. 

1941 ). 

GAD, Operations Manual, Order 

NO. 0413.1 (Feb. 7, 1980). 

GAO-OM, Ord. No. 0413.1. 

Policy & Procedures GAO, Policy and Procedures Manual for 7 GAO-PPM S 20.5. 

Manual for Guidance Guidance of Federal Agencies, tit. 7, 

of Federal Agencies g 20.5 (TS NO. 7-40, July 14, 1983). 

Project Manual 

Report Manual 

GAO, Project Manual at 10-1 (Feb. 

1982). 

GAO-PM at 10-2. 

GAO, Report Manual at 13-5 (TS No. 115 GAO-RM at 13-5. 

June, 1983). 

S amp 1 e he r e a f t e r " GAO, Operations Manual, Order No. 0413.1 

parenthetical (Feb. 7, 7980) (hereafter cited as GAO-OM 

Ord. No. 0413.1. 

D. NON-GAO DOCUMENTS 

Note: The documents listed below should be cited as indicated, whenever possible. 

However, some of the citation information (publication dates, for example) is 

not uniformly available for these documents. When information included in 

these sample citations is unavailable or inadequate, any other information 

which would help to identify and locate the cited document should be provided 

in the citation. When subsequent citations to one of these documents is anticipated, be sure to provide a parenthetical explanation of the short form citation, using either the "hereafter" format, or one of the alternative formats 

discussed in section number I(G) of this Guide. For example: 

Document Initial Citation Subsequent Citation 

Boards of Contract Appeals5 Home Insurance Co., Armed Services Home Insurance Co., 81-1 

Board of Contract Appeals No. 22,898, B.C.A. at 73.625. 

Dec. 12, 1980, reprinted in 81-1-B.C;A. 

!I 14,884 (CCH 1981). 

Comptroller of the Treasury 90 MS Comp. Dec. 47 (1919). 

Decisions - Manuscripts 

90 MS Comp. Dec. at 48. 
Page A5 

D. NON-GAO DOCUHENTS (cont.) 

Document Initial Citation 

Comptroller of the Treasury 15 Comp. Dec. 493 (1909). 

Decisions - "Published" 

Claims Court Decisions E-Systems v. United States, 2 C1. 

(successor to Ct. C1.1 Ct. 271 (1983). 

Subsequent Citation 

15 Comp. Dec. at 494. 

E-Systems, 2 C1. Ct. 

at 272. 

Defense Acquisition Regula- Defense Acquisition Regulation, DAR, S 3-902.3(d). 

tion6 (formerly ASPR) § 3-902.3, reprinted in 32 C.F.R. 

pts. 1-39 (1983). 

Federal Acquisition 

Regulation7 

Federal Personnel Manual 

Federal Personnel Manual 

Bullet ins 

Federal Personnel Manual 

Letters 

Federal Personnel Manual 

Supplements 

Federal Procurement 

Regulat ions6 

Federal Property Mgmt. 

Regulations 

Federal Travel Regulations 

Foreign Affairs Manual 

Inspectors General Reports 

Joint Travel Regulations8 

OMB Bulletins 

OMB Circulars 

Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual9 

Sample "hereafter" 

parent he t ica 1 

Federal Acquisition Regulation, 8 FAR, 9 14.103-1, 48 Fed. 

14.103-1, 48 Fed. Reg. 41,102, 42,171 Reg. 42,171. 

(19831 (to be codified at 48 C.F.R. 

§ 14.103-1). 

Federal Personnel Manual, ch. 300, FPM, Ch. 300, 9 2-1. 

S 2-1 (Inst. 262, May 7, 1981). 

Federal Personnel Manual Bulletin No. FPM Bull. No. 00-76. 

000-76, May 7, 1979. 

Federal Personnel Manual Letter No. FPM Lett. No. 213-30. 

213-30, June 5, 1981. 

Federal Personnel Manual Supp. No. PPM Supp. No. 990-2, 

990-2, bk. 531, S4-2 (Inst. 65, bk. 531, S4-2. 

Jan. 5, 1982). 

Federal Procurement Regulations, 41 FPR, 41 C.F.R. S 1-1.007. 

C.F.R. § 1-1.007 (1983). 

Federal Property Management Regula- FPMR, 41 C.F.R. S 

tions, 41 C.F.R. § 101-25.109-1 (1983). 101-25.109-1. 

Federal Travel Regulations, para. PTR, para. 2-6.2d(1). 

incorp. by ref., 41 C.P.R. S 101-7.003 

(1983). 

2-6.2d(l) (Supp. 4, Au3. 23, 19821, 

Foreign Affairs Manual, tit. 6, § 6 F.A.M. § 116.4. 

116.4 (Aug. 10, 1982). 

Inspector General, Department of IG/DOE, Rep. No. 10-67. 

Energy, Mismanagement of Funds [by] 

ERA, Rep. No. 10-67 (Sept. 1, 1983). 

Joint Travel Regulations, vol. 1, para. 1 JTR para. C8007-1. 

C8007-1 (Change No. 212, July 1, 1983). 

Office of Management and Budget Bul- OMB Bull. No. 84-5 at 2. 

letin No. 84-5, Dec. 8, 1983. 

office of Management and Budget Circu- OMB Circ. No. A-76, 

lar No. A-76, Aug. 4, 1983, reprinted sec. 8, 48 Fed. Reg. 

- in 48 Fed. Reg. 37,111, 37113 (1983). at 37,114. 

Treas. Fiscal Requirements Manual, 1 T.F.R.M. 1-1095.30. 

VO~. 1, § 1-1095.30 (T.L. Yo. 373). 

Office of Management and Budget Bulletin 

No. 84-5, Dec. 8, 1983 (hereafter 

cited as OMB Bull. No. 84-5). 
# 

Page A6 

1111111- -- 

FOOTNOTES 

Superseded. Subject matter currently covered in GAO-OM. 

Superseded. Subject matter currently covered in GAO-GPM and GAO-PM. 

Superseded. Subject matter currently covered in GAO-PPM. 

These are the regulations authorized by the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 

1950, ch. 946, S 115, 64 Stat. 832, 837. 

Note: the CCH transfer binders for slip opinions by Boards of Contract Appeals are 

named (and cited) differently - Contract Appeals Decisions (cited as Cont. App. Dec.). 

To be superseded by F4R. 

Effective April 1, 1984. After the new 48 C.F.R. volumes have been printed and distributed, cite only to the C.P.R. For example: FAR, 48 C.F.R. S 14.103-1. 

Note: In the JTR, paragraphs beyining with "M" (military) are in volume 1, and those 

beginning with "C" (civilian) are in volume 2. 

Note: The Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual (T.F.R.M.) is in the process of being 

changed to the Treasury Financial Manual (T.F.M.). This process should be completed 

sometime in 1984 with the issuance of a new volume 1. Citations should then be made 

to the T.P.M. 
-c 

- 111. CITATIONS ADDRESSED IN THE HARVARD CITATOR 

Citation Rules & Examples 

Introductory Signals 

(a) Signals that indicate support. 

[no signal] 

€8. 

Accord 

See 

See also 

Cf 

Cited authority (i) states the proposition. (ii) identifies the source of a quotation. or (iii) identifies 

an authority referred to in text 

Cited authority states the proposition; other authorities also state the proposition. but citation to 

them would not be helpful. "E.R.." may also be 

used in combination with other signals. preceded 

by a comma. 

See. e+.. 

Bur see. e.g.. 

Cited authority directly supports the proposition. but in a slightly different way than the 

authority(ies) first cited. "Accord" is commonly 

used when two or more cases are on point but 

the text refers to only one; the others are then 

introduced by "arrord." Similarly. the law of one 

jurisdiction may be cited as in accord with that of 

another. 

Cited authority directly supports the proposition. 

"See" is used instead of "[no signal]" when the 

proposition is not stated by the cited authority but 

follows from it. 

Cited authority constitutes additional source matenal that supports the proposition. "See ah" IS 

commonly used to cite an authority supporting a 

proposition when authorities that state or directly 

support the proposition have already been cited 

or discussed The use of a parenthetical explanation of the source material's relevance (rule 

2.5) following a citation introduced by "see alro" 

is encouraged 

Cited authority supports a proposition different 

from the main proposition but sufficiently analogous to lend support Literally. "cf." means "compare" The citation's relevance will usually be 

clear to the reader only if it is explained. Parenthetical explanations (rule 2 5). however brief. are 

therefore strongly recommended 

(b) Signal %'ha! suggests a profitable comparison. 

Coriipore 

larrc/] . . . with . . 

[mid] . . , 

. . Comparison of the authonties cited will offer sup 

port for or illustrate the proposition The comparison's relevance will usually be clear to the reader 

only if it is explained Parenthetical explanations 

(rule 2 5) following each authority are therefore 

strongly recommended 

Cited authority states the contrary of the proposltion "Conrra" is used where "[no signal]'' 

would be used for support 

Cited authority directly contradicts the proposition "Bur see" is used where ''see" would be 

used for support. 

Cited authonty supports a proposition analogous 

to the contrary of the main proposition. The use 

of a parenthetical explanation of the source material's relevance (rule 2.5) following a citation 

introduced by "bur rf." is strongly recommended 

"Bur" should be omitted from "bur see" and "bur rf" whenever 

the signal follows another negative signal: 

Conrra Blake v. Kline, 612 F.2d 718, 723-24 (3d Cir. 

(3d ed. 1976). 

(c) Signals that Indicate contradiction. 

Cortrra 

Bur see 

Bur rf. 

1979); 5ee c. WRIGHT, LAW OF FEDERAL COURTS 5 48 

(d) Signal that Indicates background material. 

See generally Cited authority presents helpful background matenal related to the proposition. The use of a 

Page A7 

Rule No. 

2.2 
111. CITATIONS ADDRESSED IN THE HARVARD CITATOR (cont.) 

Citation Rules & Examples 

introductory Signals (cont . ) 

parenthetical explanation oi the source material's 

relevance (rule 2 5) following each aulhority introduced by "see genera//y" is encouraged 

(e) Signals as verb& When "see," "coniparr." *'see generd? ," 

or another signal word IS used as the verb of an English sentence. 

the word should be printed in ordinary roman type 

For a discussion of limits on the propeny power, see 

Note. The Properr? Powr. Federalism. and the Equal 

Foofrng Docrrine. 80 COLUM. L. REV. 817 (1980). 

For a related view, compare Note. The Rights of 

Suurres. 88 YALE L.J. 1202 (1979). which discusses the 

rights of reporters' sources 

Cases 

Basic Citatlon Forms 

(a) Unlted States (federal and state), Commonwealth, and 

other common law jurlsdlctlons. 

filed bul not decided 

unpublished intenrn 

order 

published interim order 

unpublished decision 

decision published in 

service only 

decision published in 

newspaper only 

published decision 

appeal docketed 

bnef. record. or appendix 

disposition on appeal 

disposition in lower 

court showng 

SubsEquenl history 

phst for certiorari 

@on for certiorari 

granted 

In br&fr mnd bgal 

rnernormda 

filed Sepl. 18. 19851 

En len v. Tcncnhaug. 

tl \?qsbs'g (:der 

granting preliminary 

injunction) 

En len v Tenenhaum. 

Mass 1985) (d:er(D 

granting prelimnary 

injunction) 

En Ien v Tenenhaum. 

0- . a5s 

+T-sUPP 5 

o . ..sipopat6 -$mc 4. 1985) 

En len v Tenenhaum. 

~H~~l~,34~(~ 

Mass Dec 4, 19851 

e c ep 

En+";., f'g:hyi&, 

a1 I. col. 5 (D. Mass 

Dec 4. 1985) 

(D Mass. 19851 

Englen v. Tenenhaum. 

. UPP I 

z85l. a4';a? 

20, 1985) 

docketed. No%, (la 

Brief for Appellant at 7. 

Englen Y Tenenhaum. 

6 F 2d 1427 (1st Cir 

19861 

776 F2d 14Z7, 143Ollst Cir 19861 

Englen v Tenenhaurn. 

En len v Tenenhaum. -% 1985?&d. 

776 F.2d 1427 IlsZi?. 

19861 

'upp I . 1412 

Jan. 21, 1987) (No. 8b 

212) 

* 

Page A8 

10 

Rule No. 

2.2 (cont.) 
% 

111. CITATIONS ADDRESSED IN THE HARVARD CITATOR (COnt.) 

Citation Rules & Examples 

Cases (cont .I 

Basic Citation Forms 

disposition in Supreme Courl published only in 

8ewica 

Englerl v. Tenenbaum. 

.a21 3: .: YbW4. %%. 

&atin as moot 776 

Fdh33 1986) 

(b) Civil law and other noncomman-law Jurldictionr. 

puMished dedsion Judgment of Ian. 10. 1935. 

Cour d'appel, Paris. I935 

Recueil Penodique et 

Cnrique P.] II 758 

Constitutions 

Cite English-language constitutions by country or state and the 

word "CONST '*: 

U.S CONST. art. I. § 9. cl. 2. 

U.S. CONST. amend XIV. 6 2. 

u.s CONST. preamble. 

N M CONST art. IV. 97. 

Cite constitutions that have been totally superseded by year Of 

adoption. if the specific provision cited was adopted in a different 

year, give that year parenthetically 

ARK. CONST. Of 1868. all. 111, 8 2 (1873). 

Statutes 

Basic Citation Forms 

(a) American jurisdictions. 

cited lo current offiaal 

ccde 

cited to current unofficial 

code 

cited lo official session 

laws 

cited lo privately published 

session laws 

cited to secondary source 

42 U S C 5 1983 (Supp 111 1979) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 5 102. 

Probate. Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 1'4 CONS 42 L' S C 0 4332 (19761 

Si 47 5 301 (1976) 

I? U s C A 8 63511West Supp 1981) 

Parking Authonty Law. Pk STAT AN\ til 53. 5 

342 (Purdon 19741 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Pub L 

No 91-190. 5 IO?. 83 Stat 852. 853 (1970) (pnor to 1975 amendment) 

Health Care Facilities ACI. Act No 1979-48. 1979 

Pd Legis Serv. 114 (to be codified at 35 P4. 

COM STAT $8 448 101- 9031 

lnternatiiinal Air Trdnsportatl<m Cornpetillon Act of 

197Y. Pub L Nit 96-19?, P 17.4R U S L W RO 

82 ( IYKOI (IO br. wdified at 4Y U S C 5 1102) 

Legislative Materials 

Basic Citation Forms 

federal bill (unenacted) H R 3055.94th Cone: . 2d Sess . 122 CONG REC 

16.870-71 (19761 .. federal resolution 

(unenacted) 

stale resolution 

H R 1 Res 11 16.951h Cong.. 2d Sess , 124 Cow 

Okla S Res. 20. 37th Leg . 1979 Okla Sess L~M 

Rtc H8790-91 (daily ed Aug 16. 1978) 

Serv A-159 

cmmmee heanng Panorno Conol Trron I~nplrrn~nroiron Hrorrngs on 

H R 1716 Before ihr Sublornm on Immlprorron. 

Refugees. and Inrrrnorronal Loll of rhe House 

Comrn on rhr Judic ton %th Cong . 1st Sess 68- 70 (1979) Istatement of Ambler H Moss. Jr . U S . Ambassador Io the Republlc of Panama) 

federal repon H R REP No 98. 92d Cong . 1st Sess 4. rpprrnred rn 

1971 u.s CODE CONG 8 AD NEW5 1017. 1017 

.- _I---- 

Page A9 

Rule No. 

IO (cont.) 

11 

12 

13 

Note: Testimony given in legislative 

hearings is to be cited using the format 

for committee hearings. See Rule No. 

15.5.2 for the format for non-legislative speeches and statements. In either 

case, the file number should be provided 

parenthetically, when it is known. 

Note: Conference reports should be 

identified as such in a parenthetical. - - - - ____ ___ - 

TEXT PHOTOREPRINTED FROM HARV. L. REV. ASS'N, A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION, 13th ED., 1981. 

--------------_---__-I_ ----_--_- I__ __________ ~ -_I___-

________-I_
111. CITATIONS ADDRESSED IN THE HARVARD CITATOR (COnt.1 

Citation Rules & Examples 

Legislative Materials (cont . 

Basic Citation Forms 

federal document H R Doc Nu 208. Y4ih Cling . Is1 Sess 2 lIY75) 

committee print s1Al I 01 SI N41l CoMM Oh FINANI I, 931) C(IN(o , 

21, SISS . SIAti Dki~ AND MATtRiAl\ON UN~TLD STAT1 5 TRkni AND BA~ ANI I (11 PA\ Mi NTS 52 (Comrn Pnnl IY741 

126 CoNc Ri c H64Ch (daily ed July 24 1980) 

Isldternent of Rep Levita\) 

Si NATI COMM ON LmoR AND Pvsi ir Wi I FAR^. 

L~R(IR-M~Y~(,~MI hl RI PORING AND 

Dis(iori1~1 A( i c)i IYCY. S RIP No 187 86th 

Cone , 1st Sess 4 npriiirvd in 1959 U S Cooi 

CONG B AD Nius 2318 2320 endin I NLRB. 

congressional debate 

source reprinted in 

separately bound legislative 

history 

LlGlSl AliVI HISTOR) 01 1HI LABOR- MANAGt Mi pll RI PURTINb AhD DISC LllSURl A( 1 

OF IYW. a! 3Y7. 400(19(YI 

Congressional debates prior to 1873 are cited accordlng to the 

following models 

1 I89- 1824 38 A.i%~i \ oi Crw. 624 I I8221 

But for vol 1. give edilor(s) in parentheses 

1 AhhklL 01 CO4(* 486 IJ Gdle\ ed 1789) 

1824-1837 IO Cfi\(, Di H 3472 Ill7341 

183% 1873 To%(. GI IIHI . 36th Cons 1st Se5s 1672 (lR601 

Administrative and Executive Materials 

Basic Citation Forms 

federal rules and regulations 

(excepl Treasury) 

Code of Federal Regulations EP4 EfAuent Limitdlions Guidelines. 40 C F R 5 

47 C F R 6 73 609 11980) 

Federal Register Amendmenlr to Regulation A. 45 Fed Reg 41.629 lIY801 (10 be codified a1 I? C F R $6 201 SI- 531 

C F R 5 39 131 

40' 53 119801 

45 Fed Reg 45.259 119801 Ito he codified a1 14 

Treasury regulations Trea, Reg P 1 302thl lIYS5l 

agency adjudications 

(see rules 10 2 3 8 10 3 1) 

formal advisory opinions 3Y Op Ait'y Gen 484 1 I9401 

Reichold Cherns Inc . 91 F T C 246 119781 

executive orders Exec Order No 11.609. 3 C.F R 308(19741 

rrprinwd in 3 U S C 8 301 app a1 272-74 i 1976) 

Short Forms for Cases and Statutes 

(a) Cases. In briefs. legal memoranda, and similar materials, 

citations to a case that has already been cited in full in the same 

general discussion may be shortened to any of the following 

forms that clearly identifies the case 

United States \ Calandra 414 Ll S at 343 

Calandra. 414 U S at 343 

414 US at 343 

named 

statutes 

United 

States Code 

provisions 

all other statuto 

lll,1,9 

Full eltation Law review text 

Administrative Pro- section I of the 

cedure Act § I. 5 Administrative 

U.S C 5 551 (1976) Procedure Act 

section 1 

42 U.S C B 1983 42 U.S C 0 1983 (1976) 

DEL CODE ANN tit title 28. section 556 of 28. 9 556 (Supp. 1978) the Delaware Code 

Sugge8ted ahobi 

forms 

§I 

5USC 0551 

Administrative 

42 U S.C 5 1983 

0 1983 

title 28. § 556 

0 556 

Procedure Act § I 

P 

Page A10 

R.ule No. 

13 (cont.) 

Note: Cite debates to the final bound 

edition, rather than the daily edition, 

whenever possible. (Daily edition pagination does not correspond to that of 

the bound edition, and it is not sufficient to simply drop the H, S, or other 

letter from the daily page number.) 

14 

4.3 

Note: A subsequent citation to a case 

in general, rather than to particular 

pages or passages, should (i) omit the 

pinpoint information (i.e., the phrase 

beginning with "atii and ending after 

the parallel citation, if any), and 

(ii) insert the phrase ", sup~a," if 

it is not already included in the cite. 
% 

111. CITATIONS ADDRESSED IN THE HARVARD CITATOR (cont.) Page AII 

Citation Rules & Examples 

Short Forms for Cases and Statutes (cont . ) 

(c) Conrtltutlonr. Do not use a short citation form for constltutions. 

Federal 

Rule No. 

4.3 (cont.) 

Tables 

United States 

SUprSInO Court (US.): Cite to U.S., S. CI.. or U.S.L.W.. in that order of 

preference. Do not give a parallel citation. 

United States Reports 

91 U.S todate 1875-date U.S 

Wallace 1863-1874 d.g ,68 U S (I Wall I 

Black 1861-1862 e.g , 66 U S (I Black) 

Howard 1842-1860 e.g ,42 U S (I How.) 

Peters 

Wheaton 

Cranch 1801-1815 e g , 5 U S (I Cranch) 

Dallas 

18Z-1842 e g , 26 U S (I Pet ) 

1816-1827 e g . 14 U S (1 Wheat I 

1790-1800 e g , I U S (I Dall ) 

Supreme Court Reporter 1882-date S Ct 

United Sates Law Week 1933-date U S L W 

Clrcut Judices (e.g , Rehnquist. Circuit Justice): Cie to U.S , S. Ct , or 

U.S L W. if therein, in that order of preference. 

United States Reports 1964-date U S 

Supreme Court Reporter 1926-dale S Ct 

Uniled Stales Law Week 1932-date U S L W 

(A few other opinions are reported in other reporters 

E.g , United States v Motlo%, IO F 2d 657 (Butler. 

Circuit Justice 1926) I 

Courts of Appeals (e.g, 1st Cir , D.C. Cir ), previously Circuit Courts of 

Appeals (e.g , 1st Ctr.), andcourt of Appeals of/for the District of Columbia 

(D.C. Ctr.). Cite to F. or F.2d. 

Federal Reporter 1891-date F , F.2d 

ClrcuR Courts (e.g., C.C.S D.N.Y.. C.C.D. Cal.) (abolished 1912). Cie to 

F. Cas. or F. 

Federal Cases 1784-1880 F Cas 

(Citations to F. Cas should give the case number 

parenthetically E g , Hochman v Sobeloff. 18 F. 

Cas 598 (C C W.D Pa 1859) (No 10.444) ) 

Federal Reporter 188C-1912 F 

Emergency Court of Appeals (Erner Ct. App.). Terllporary Emergency 

Court of Appeals (Temp. Emer. Ct. App.), and Commerce Court (Cornm. 

Ct.): Cite to F. or F.2d. 

Federal Reporter 1926-date F , F 2d 

Court of Claims (Ct. Cl.), Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 

(C C P A ), Customs Court (Curt Ct ), and Court of lnternatlonal Trade 

(Ct In17 Irade) Cite to F.?d or F Supp 11 therein. otherwise cite to the 

respective oflicial reporter 

Federal Reporter 1929-dale F 2d 

Federal Supplement 1932-date F Supp 

Court of Claims Reports 1956-dale Cl CI 

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1929-date C C P A 

Reports 

Customs Court Reports 1938-1980 Cusl Ci 

Court 01 International Trade Reports 198C-date Ct Ini'l Trddc 

District Courts (e g., D. Mass , S.D.N Y.) For cases after 1932, cite to F. 

Supp , F R D , or Bankr if therein, otherwise cite to Fed R. Sen. or Fed R 

Sew Zd For prior cases. cite to F , F ?d. or F Cas if therein 

Federal Supplement 1932-date F Supp 

Federal Rules Decisions 193Edate F R D 

Bankruptcy Reporter 1979-date Banhr 

Federal Rules Service 1938-date Fed R Sen ICalldghan). Fed R Sen ?d 

(Callaghani 

Federal Reporter 188&1932 F . F 2d 

Federal Cases 1789-1880 F Cas 

(Citations to F Cas should give the case number 

parenthetically E g , Lt purr,' McKean 16 F Ca5 

i&(E D Va 18781 INo 88481) _-------I__-- . - - - -_ - . . - - - - - - .- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -I 

Note: Court of Claims is now Claims 

Court (Cl. Ct.). Sample citation 

shown above in section I(D) on p. A5. 

TEXT PHOTOREPRINTED FROM HARV. L. REV. ASS'N, A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION, 13th ED., 1981. 
111. CITATIONS ADDRESSED IN THE HARVARD CITATOR (COnt.1 

J. 

Page A12 

Citation Rules & Examples 

Federal (cont . ) 

Bankruptcy Courts (e.g., Bankr. N.D. Cal.) and Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panels (e.g., Bankr. 1st Cir ). Cite to Banhr if therein; otherwise cite to a service (rule 18) 

Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (J.P.M.D L.) and Special Court 

Regional Rail Reorganization Act (Regional Rail Reorg Ct.) Cite lo F. Supp. 

Tax Court (T.C.) and Board of Tax Appeals (B.T.A.) Cite to T.C or B.T.A. 

if therein, otherwise cite lo T.C.M. (CCH). T.C.M (P-HI. or B.T.A.M (P-H). 

Tax Court of the United States Reports 1942-dale T C 

Board of Tax Appeals Reports 1924-1942 BTA 

Tax Court Memorandum Decisions 

Board of Tax Appeals Memorandum 

Decisions 

Court of Military Appeals (C.M A.) Cite to C M A. it therein and to M.J. or 

C.M.R 

Court of Military Appeals Reports 1951-1975 C M A 

Military Justice Reporter 1975.date M J. 

Court Martial Reports 1951-1977 C M R 

auflmot Mllltrry Revbw (e& A.C.M.R., A.F.C.M.R.). previously Bomdt 

of Mvbw (e.g , A.B.R.): For cases after 1950, cite to M.J. or C.M.R. For 

eader cases, cite to the official reporter. 

MIIit~ry Justica Reporter 1975-date M I 

court Marlial Reports 1951-1977 C M R 

StHmry compllrtlons Cite to U.S.C. if therein. 

United Stales Code 

Bankruptcy Reporter 1979-dale Bankr 

Federal Supplement 1968-date F Supp 

1942-date T C M ICCHt lor (P-H)) 

1924-1942 B T A M (P-H) 

x u s c P x (19XX) 

x U S C A 6 x (West 

19XXl 

op 19XX) 

(26 U S C may be ebbreviated as I R C ) 

United States Code Annotaled 

United Slates Code Service xuscs IX(LaU co 

Seasbn laws 

United States Statutes a1 Large x Stat xxx (Ixxx) 

(Cite public laws before 1957 by chapler number, 

cite subsequent acts by public law number ) 

Unitsd Stater offlclsl admlnlstmtlve publlcatlons 

Administrative Decisions under 

Immigration and Nalionalization Laws 

Agricuilural DeCiSlOnS 

Alomic Energy Commission Reports 

Civil Aeronautics Board Reports (vol 1 

byCAA) 

Copyright Dec:isions 

Court of Customs Appeals Reports 

Cumulative Bulletin 

Customs Bulletin and Decisions 

Decisions of the Comptroller General 

Decisions of the Employees' 

Compensation Appeals Board 

Decisions of the Department of the 

Intenor (from vol 53) 

Decisions of the Federal Marrlime 

Commission 

Decisions of the United States Maritime 

Commission 

De rtment of the Interior Decisions 

Re%g lo Public Lands (LOIS 1-52) 

Federal Communications Commission 

Reports 

Federal Power Cornmission Reports 

Federal Reserve Bulletin 

Federal Trade Commission Decisions 

Interstate Commerce Commission 

Reports 

Interstate Commerce Commission, 

Valuation Reports 

Motor Carrier Cases 

National Labor Relations Board 

Decisions and Orders 

National Railroad AOjustment Board. 1s1- 

4th Div 

1940-date 

1942-date 

1956 1975 

1940-dale 

1909-date 

1 91 0-1 929 

191 9-dale 

1967-date 

1921-date 

1947-date 

1930-date 

1947-date 

191S1947 

1 881- 1 929 

19L-date 

1931-date 

1915-date 

1915-date 

1887-dale 

1 Q29-date 

1936dale 

1935dale 

1934-dale 

I & N Dec 

Agnc Dec 

AEC 

CAB 

copy Dec 

Cr Cusl App 

CB 

Cusr B B Dec 

Comp Gen. 

Empl Comp App Bd 

lnrenor Dec 

FMC 

Dec U S Mar. Comm'n 

Pub Lands Dec 

F.C C . F C C 2d 

F.P C 

Fed Res Bull 

FTC 

ICC 

I C C. Valuation Rep 

MCC 

NLRB 

eg. N R A B (1st Div ) 

Rule No. 

Tables (cont.) 
4 

111. CITATIONS ADDRESSED IN THE HARVARD CITATOR (cont. ) 

. Citation Rules & Examples 

Federal (cont. ) 

National Transportation Safety Board 

Decisions 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Issuances 

Official Gazette of the United States 

Patent 0ft)ce 

Gflicial Opinions of the Solicitor for the 

Post Office Department 

Opinions of the Attorney General 

Opinions 01 Gflice of Legal Counsel 

Patents. Decisions of the Commissioner 

and of US Courts 

Securities and Exchange Cornmission 

Decisions and Reports 

Treasury Decisions Under Customs and 

Other Laws 

Treasury Decisions Under Internal 

Revenue Laws 

1967-date 

1975-date 

1872-date 

18731951 

1789-date 

1977-date 

1869-date 

1934-date 

1898-1 966 

1898-1 942 

N T.S B 

N.R C 

Off Gaz. Pat Office 

op. SOllC P 0 Lkp't 

Op Att'y Gen 

Op Ofi Legal Counsel 

Dec Comm'r Pat 

S.E C 

Treas Dec 

Treas Dec Int Re\ 

International Materials 

Bask Cltatfon Forms 

(a) Tlartles and other International rgmments (rule 19.2) 

bilateral or tnlaleral. U S a Treaty of Friendship. Commerce and Navigation. 

Apr 2. 1953. United States-Japan. art X. 4 

U S T 2063. 2071. T.1 A S No 2863. at IO 

Turkey. 3 Recueil de Traites (Turk ) 457. 100 

L N T.S 137 

Agreement on lnternational Classification of 

Trademarked Goods and Services. June IS. 1957. 

23 US T 1336. T I A S No 7418. 550 

UNTS 45 

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 

Weapon<. t1ppnc.d hr srpnarurv July I. 1968. 21 

U S T 483. T I A S No 6839. 729 U N T S 

161 

PalY 

bilateral or tnlaleral. US not a 

Pa9 

Treaty of Neutrality. Jan 5, 1929. Hungarymutiilateral. US a party 

(b) lnternatbnal law cases and arbitrations (rule 19.3) 

World Court cases Fishenes Jurisdiction (U K v Ice ). 1972 1.C J 12 

IIntenm Protection Order of AUK 17) 

Common Market cases lmpenal Chem lndus v Commission des 

Communautes europeennes. 1972 C.J Comm E 

Rec 619. 11971-1973 Transfer Binder1 COMMO~ 

MKT REP ICCH) T 8161 

(Scott) 275 (Perm Ct Arb 191 I) 

international arbitrations Savarkar Case IFr v Gr Bnt ). Hague Ct Rep 

(c) United Nations materials (rule 19.4). 

included in an official record UNICEF Financial Repon IO U N GAOR Supp 

UN charter U N CHARTER art 2. para 4 

documents wthoul UN number 

(No 6AI at 5. LI N Doc A12905 (1955) 

U N Economic Committee for Europe. 29 

Economic Bulletin for Europe 9. U N Sales No. 

E 78 I1 E 4 (1977) 

(d) Materials of other international organizations (rule 19.5). 

European Community 1%1-1962 EUR PARL DEB (No. 38) 5 (Mar 7. 

1961) 

European Parliament) 

O.J ELIR COMM (No 261) 7 (1980) (Debates of 

1972-1973 EUR PARL Doc (No. 258) 5 11973) 

Council of Europe EUR CONSLILT Ass DEB IOTH SESS 639(0ct 

16. 1958) 

Reply of the Comm of Ministers. Eur Consult 

Ass.. 12th Sess , Doc No I126 (1960) 

(e) Yearbooks (rule 19.6). 

Unlted Nations 

other 

Summary Records of the 187th Meeting. [I9531 I 

Y B INT'L L. COMM'N 17. U N Doc 

AICN.4ISER A/1953 

Certain Expenses of rhe United Narrnnr 

(summary), 1961-1962 I C J.Y.B 78 (1962) 

Page A13 

Rule No. 

Tables (cont.) 

19