Some little stylistic things, if you are looking for polish

Punctuation matters

Commas in lists and series: The BB is silent on this issue (at least BNL can't find the rule). According to The Chicago Manual of Style, in a series of three or more items, you should set the last item off with a comma before the conjunction. This is tricky when two items together form one item in a series. Where the elements in a series are long phrases, especially ones that have commas within them, it is better to set the elements off with semi-colons.

Good:    I read the complaint, the answer, and the motion.

    I brought the rope and the block and tackle.

Not:    I read the complaint, the answer and the motion.

OK:    Defendant offered plaintiff the car, which had previously been totaled, $1000 in cash, payable in $200 payments over five months, and a release of liability, which defendant had downloaded from the Internet.

Better:    Defendant offered plaintiff the car, which had previously been totaled; $1000 in cash, payable in $200 payments over five months; and a release of liability, which defendant had downloaded from the Internet.

Apostrophes: You should not use contractions in your memoranda, unless you are quoting evidence or an authority that did. "Cannot" is one word.

Good:    Defendant did not justify its fees to plaintiff as required by the Act.

Defendant cannot justify its fees.

Not:    Defendant did not justify its fees to plaintiff as required by the Act.

Defendant can not justify its fees.

Defendant can't justify its fees.

When indicating a possessive, you should add an apostrophe and a lower-case 's,' unless the possessive is pronounced without an additional syllable.

Good:    SDS's initial capitalization was $3,000,000.

The Snyders' ownership interests in Snyder Corp. exceed ninety percent.

Not:    SDS' initial capitalization was $3,000,000.

The Snyders's ownership interests in Snyder Corp. exceed ninety percent.

Colons. Generally, use a colon only to end a complete sentence that introduces a list or that describes the clause that follows it. Do not use it to introduce a list that is necessary for the completion of the sentence.

Good:    To invoice this equitable claim, the plaintiff must show two elements: (1) the sole or dominant shareholder had control . . .; and (2) . . . .

To invoke this equitable claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) the sole or dominant shareholder had control . . .; and (2) . . . .

Defendant incorporated SDS for one purpose: to avoid liability.

Not:    To invoke this equitable claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the sole or dominant shareholder had control . . .; and (2) . . . .

Stringing sentences and clauses together: If you have two adjacent complete sentences that are closely related in subject, you may string them together either with a comma and a conjunction or with a semi-colon. If you have two verb clauses with the same subject, you should join them with a conjunction and no comma. (But if you have three or more such clauses, then you have a series and should join them according to the "comma" rules above.) Stringing two complete sentences together with a comma only is an error, called a "comma splice" by some.

Good:    Defendant is a subsidiary of Snyder Corp., and Mr. Snyder owns sixty-five percent of the shares of Snyder Corp.

Not:    Defendant is a subsidiary of Snyder Corp. and Mr. Snyder owns sixty-five percent of the shares of Snyder Corp.

Defendant is a subsidiary of Snyder Corp. Mr. Snyder owns sixty-five percent of the shares of Snyder Corp. (Comma splice.)

Good:    Defendant is a subsidiary of Snyder Corp.; Snyder Corp. owns seventy-five percent of the shares of defendant.

Not:    Defendant is a subsidiary of Snyder Corp., Snyder Corp. owns seventy-five percent of the shares of defendant. (Comma splice again.)

Good:     Mr. Snyder is president of Snyder Corp. and owns sixty-five percent of its shares.

Not:     Mr. Snyder is president of Snyder Corp., and owns sixty-five percent of its shares.

Good:     Mr. Snyder is president of Snyder Corp., is a member of its board of directors, and owns 100% of its shares.

Not:     Mr. Snyder is president of Snyder Corp. is a member of its board of directors and owns 100% of its shares.

Other style matters

It is not necessary to announce an abbreviation of a common name or term in your memorandum if the abbreviation is obvious.

Good:    Snyder Corporation is the parent corporation of Snyder Distribution Systems ("SDS"). Chris Walker and Walker Company have sued SDS and Snyder Corp. Mr. Walker and Walker Co. allege that SDS and Snyder Corp. interfered with a contract.

Not:    Snyder Corporation ("Snyder Corp.") is the parent corporation of Snyder Distribution Systems ("SDS"). Chris Walker ("Mr. Walker") and Walker Company ("Walker Co.") have sued SDS. Mr. Walker and Walker Co. allege that SDS interfered with a contract.

Do not capitalize job titles unless they immediately precede a person's name.

Good:    Daniel Snyder is chief executive officer and president of SDS.

Not:    Daniel Snyder is Chief Executive Officer and President of SDS.

Avoid words that redundantly identify the present time in sentences using the present tense, except when contrasting the current time to another time.

Good:    Daniel Snyder is chief executive officer and president of SDS.

Not:    Daniel Snyder is currently chief executive officer and president of SDS.

    Daniel Snyder is president of SDS at this time.

    Daniel Snyder is president of SDS at this point in time.

    Daniel Snyder is now president of SDS.

OK:    Daniel Snyder is currently president of SDS; if SDS uses this suit, he may soon be unemployed.

Because your memorandum relates to an ongoing suit, your memo subject line should probably include the caption of the case. E.g., "Walker Co. v. Snyder Distribution Systems: piercing the corporate veil to hold Snyder Corp. or Steven Snyder liable." If I happen on this memo later, I'll have a better chance of understanding what it is about.

Watch out for initial dependent clauses where it is unclear what they modify. These phrases are often called "dangling modifiers."

Not:    To examine this issue more clearly, the factors are separable into three broad categories. (Are the factors going to examine the issue?)

Better:    Examining the issue clearly requires separation of the factors into three broad categories.

Not:    After reading the underlying data, the article remains unconvincing. (Did the article read the underlying data?)

Better:    After reading the underlying data, I remain unconvinced.

Dates and numerals

Two areas where Rebecca and I may have marked your paper drafts up somewhat inconsistently relate to dates and numbers/numerals. Here is some clarification that you should use when preparing your next SDS memo draft and for your spring assignments.

Dates

In the text of your memo (including the memo header lines – addressee, date, etc.), indicate dates by spelling out the month followed by the cardinal numeral, a comma, and the year. Military and international usage prefers day, month, year ordering, e.g., "12 November 2008." (The Chicago Manual of Style prefers this as well.) But those provisions of the BB that address exact dates prefer the month, day, year ordering, e.g., "November 12, 2008." Set the date off from succeeding text with a comma. You do not need a comma between a month and year when there is no date. You should abbreviate months in citation sentences/clauses according to BB T. 12, but not in textual sentences. (See BB Rule 6.1.)

    E.g.:    On October 21, 2008, the defendant resigned.
        In October 2008, the defendant resigned. (Some folks feel the comma is unnecessary.)
        On November 4, we will vote. (Again, some folks do not believe comma is necessary.)

    Not:    On October 21^st, 2008, the defendant resigned. (Don't use ordinal "st.")
        On October 21, 2008 the defendant resigned. (Missing comma after "2008.")
        On 21 October 20008, the defendant resigned. (Military/international order.)
        In October, 2008, the defendant resigned. (First comma unnecessary.)

Where you have choices or options, or can vary punctuation based on personal preferences, be sure you do it consistently.

Numbers vs. numerals

Note BB Rule 6.2(a). Under it, you must spell out all numbers zero to ninety-nine in your text. You must also spell out any number that begins a sentence. (The alternative to spelling out the numbers is using numerals; the numeral "6" is spelled out as "six.") Under 6.2(d), you must spell out "percent" where you have to spell out the number; if you can write numerals, you can use the % sign. The rule is pierced with exceptions: Rule 6.2(a)(i) permits the use of spelled out "round" numbers like "hundred" and "thousand." Rule 6.2(a)(v)permits you to use numerals and percent signs "[w]here material repeatedly refers to percentages." (I'd interpret that as multiple occurrences within a single sentence or four or five occurrences within a paragraph; others may differ.) In the silliness category, note under 6.2(a)(vii) that you should use a comma for five-digit numerals, but not for four-digit numerals. And for another classic example of BB silliness, read 6.2(b)(ii).

E.g.:    Steven Snyder owned sixty-five percent of SDS's stock.

Steven Snyder owned 65% of SDS's stock; Bill owned 5%; and Mary owned 3%.

Steven Snyder owned 100% of SDS's stock.

Snyder Corp. invested $3,300,000 in SDS. (Would "$3.3 million" be ok? BNL is not sure.)

SDS still owes Snyder Corp. $200,000. (The rule might permit "two hundred thousand dollars," but much easier to read $200,000.)

SDS owns 1456 trucks and ships 14,567 crates of product per month.

Not:    Steven Snyder owned 65% of SDS's stock.

SDS still owes Snyder Corp. two hundred thousand dollars.

SDS owns 1,456 trucks.

Again, consistency is the key where you have options.