As a California Certified Legal Secretary (“CCLS”) who was explicitly tested on the proper usage and citation style of California statutes in pleadings, I confess that there is nothing that brings on a fit of eye-twitching faster than seeing “CCP” used as an abbreviation for the Code of Civil Procedure. Since this abbreviation appears nowhere in the Rules of Court or the statutes themselves but is a seemingly accepted practice among legal practitioners and courts alike, I recently researched the question of why CCP is allowed in California pleadings when it is not officially recognized by the California Supreme Court.
The official abbreviation for the Code of Civil Procedure, as adopted by the California Supreme Court in the California Style Manual (“CSM”), is (Code. Civ. Proc.) and is only used within parentheses. Any other time the term Code of Civil Procedure is used, it is to be spelled out in full. If a section is to follow, the word “section” is also spelled out (no section symbol). Per the CSM, section symbols should only follow an abbreviated statute, i.e., (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013).
So, how did we get such widespread usage and apparent unofficial acceptance of the abbreviation CCP? For eye-twitchers like me who really do care about proper citation style, here’s the clearest explanation: because litigators rely on common-usage, plain-language shortcuts, and California courts do not require strict adherence to the California Style Manual, so long as the citation is clear and not misleading. CCP has become such a universally understood shorthand among practitioners that courts accept it as sufficiently clear, even if it is not an official abbreviation.
While California’s Supreme Court has adopted the California Style Manual as the official style for citations in California courts, California does not require exclusive use of the CSM and there is no rule requiring attorneys or parties to follow it. California courts will accept citations via CSM, Harvard Bluebook, local practice, or any format that is reasonably clear.
Unlike some jurisdictions, California does not enforce citation uniformity (at least with any consistency). That means a citation is valid as long as a judge can tell what statute you’re referring to. However, let’s be clear: CCP is practitioner shorthand, not an official citation.
The abbreviation CCP persists because:
- It’s short.
- It’s instantly understood by attorneys, clerks, judges, and staff.
- It’s used in filings, emails, discovery responses, RFP responses, captions, and meet-and-confer letters.
- Many case management systems, calendaring tools, and docketing programs use CCP internally.
This created a feedback loop because:
- Practitioners used it.
- Clerks became accustomed to it.
- Courts stopped objecting.
It became accepted practice, even if not official. For the most part, courts care about clarity over format. As long as the statute or citation is identifiable, not misleading, and does not obstruct comprehension, it is considered acceptable and/or reflective of everyday practice.
CCP § 473(b) and (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b)) both point to the same statute and cause no confusion. However, there CAN be confusion without proper clarification for other California statutes. For example, the abbreviation “CC” used in a pleading, discovery, or other legal document could refer to the Corporations Code, Civil Code, or Commercial Code. This is why using the correct abbreviation and style should be used, even if it means a few extra keystrokes.
Judges themselves often use this shorthand and use abbreviations like CCP 473 or CCP 1005 in tentative rulings, minute orders, or OSC paperwork. Once judges normalize a shorthand, practitioners feel safe using it.
So, where does that leave this eye-twitching CCLS? Well, to be honest, I do have a better understanding of how we got here and why the practice is so widely used and accepted. But you’ll please excuse me while I reinforce the Post-It flags on my California Style Manual.
Categorized in: Legal Procedure
| << previous | next >> |