Sic Legal on

November 30, 2022

“[Sic]” is used to mark spelling and grammatical errors in a quoted text in order to inform the reader that the error was made by the cited author, not by the author of the text he is reading. There are many contexts in which it is appropriate to use “[sic],” especially formal writing such as newspaper articles, academic essays, and legal documents. Is it possible to use [sic] correctly to identify added text that should not be included in a sentence? In my work, I often have to quote legal texts such as a municipal ordinance. Typing errors and random words often end up in places where they have no place between the city`s acceptance of the text, with the City Clerk transcribing it for signature by the Mayor, and the subsequent uploading of the adopted order to an online electronic viewing service. In some cases, the online posting of the text may not correspond to the (legal) text actually adopted, but may be the only publicly available (or even written) citation of the text. In any case, it is customary to quote the text of the quotation, whether correct or not, as it is the only text that a layman can access to verify accuracy. We recommend that you consult a style guide that specializes in legal documents. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, published by the Harvard Law Review Association, and the ALWD Citation Manual: A Professional System of Citation, created and published by the Association of Legal Writing Directors and Darby Dickerson. Styles seem to be an underutilized skill of many secretaries.

I encounter a lot of numbering errors. My question is: I use (sic) in documents that I format as needed for spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, but how could I correctly indicate a numbering error since there is an automatic space of half an inch between the number and the first word of the sentence in styles? (I use styles and iHyperstyles when formatting.) I used [(sic)numbering errors.] before the first word of the sentence ((sic) italics, of course) in legal documents, but I`m not sure that`s appropriate or acceptable on a professional platform. Why was my question not answered and/or posted on the website? Wasn`t that enough? I think it was a very legitimate question about the correct use of (sic) in legal documents as far as numbering is concerned. Maybe the host doesn`t know the answer. Hmmmm . Those he or she doesn`t know he or she won`t let through. Kind. It is not always possible to specify exactly how best to use the tool [sic]. We do not think that replacing the words “and requires” with “[sic]” would be helpful because no one would understand what is wrong.

You may just need to exercise your best judgment. Perhaps a legal style manual contains useful instructions. You may also want to read our latest article, Understanding the Trick Behind [sic]. [Sic] is used after each error. Instead, you may want to consider placing a disclaimer before sections of the contract, such as: “The following sections of the ABC contract contain grammatical errors, but are included here exactly as they appear in the contract because they do not affect the legal issues at stake” or something like that. However, if it is possible that the grammatical errors have led to some of what is disputed by the parties, it may be preferable to identify each error with [sic]. I format legal documents in a law firm. Opposing companies send us discoveries so that our customers can respond.

To prepare these documents, I scan them to convert them into our system and format the styles in Word to create a document that mimics or looks exactly like what was sent by an opposing lawyer for use. For similar reasons, “[sic]” also appears regularly in scientific writings and legal documents, where it is important to cite sources word for word. We recommend capitalization as a signal to the reader that [Sic] is part of the author`s title. If italics are not available, regular quotation marks are the best option, based on the Chicago Manual of Style`s recommendation that “titles of long or short works that appear in an italicized title are enclosed in quotation marks.” [Sic] is more commonly used to indicate that something misspelled is intentionally left as it was in the original. “Cleaning” a document as you describe it involves correcting errors and [sic] would not be used. If we know how to use [sic], some might even argue that using it can make us sound a bit pompous. Or they might laugh at its use as unnecessary or irrelevant. Check out these comments on [sic] published by The Guardian. This seems unusual, but possible. We recommend that you write the quote exactly as it was originally written.

If you find it necessary to point out that [sic] is part of the original quote, you can add an explanation, for example (Note to readers: the use of [sic] in this quote). If the text containing the error is already in italics, unify the [sic] or leave it in italics? Is it appropriate to use sic to note an error in fact, such as a newspaper headline “100 people killed in plane crash” and later, when the number is actually 104 people, would you use “100 people [sic] killed in a plane crash”? When will I learn! Typical usage is to inform the reader that obvious errors or errors in the material cited are not due to errors during transcription, but are intentionally reproduced, exactly as they appear in the source text. It is usually placed in square brackets to indicate that it is not part of the cited issue. If I am quoting directly from a document and inserting a well-placed [sic], is there anything I should include at the end of the quote to indicate that the [sic] was inserted by me and is not included in the original document? (in the same sense, as they say, italics added, etc.) Many writers and editors may not know how and when to use [sic] because they deal with certain grammatical errors in different ways. But just in case, here are alternatives to using [sic]. It is especially useful when citing a source that has not been subject to strict editorial controls. This may include, for example, a transcript of an interview, a diary or correspondence: “[Sic]” is used when the text is quoted verbatim. The purpose is to let the reader know that it was the author of the cited text who made the mistake, not the author of the current article. So it is effectively a way to clearly blame the quoted author and pretend that you really know how to spell. I translate a quote from a newspaper, and the author misspells a person`s name (Alois instead of Alvise). Should I use [sic] here too or just correct the name, since this is a translation? Thank you! Q.

One author insisted on putting a “sic” after citing authors who use “him” or “himself” to generally refer to people rather than using gendered language. We think this is somewhat presumptuous and that the material quoted should stand on its own. Do smart editors have any advice? What if a quote contains more than one misspelled word, do you use [sic] after each misspelled word? Authors use [sic] to indicate a misspelled or misused word in an original document or passage. It would not be used to correct a factual error in a document as you describe it. A factual inaccuracy would often be cited in a footnote or with an asterisk. Do you use [sic] if a citation in MLA format is incorrect? Thank you very much. So if you put it on “Americanisms”, you should know damn much better what you`re talking about, and my experience suggests that most English speakers/British writers don`t! Thank you for helping me with that. This thread was so informative for me!! What if [sic] is part of a title (not the first word), capitalize it? (e.g. “Luv [sic] All of Me” or “Luv [sic] All of Me”.

What if you can`t italicize the font in the program you`re using, is it okay to leave it normal? Thank you very much. As described in our Rule 1 parentheses, parentheses can be used to explain or comment on a quotation. Therefore, “the characters in these [grunge-fiction] texts defy imaginary boundaries” is correct. I translate material that is mainly in Spanish, but contains a direct quote in English from the author himself.