What in a Contract Requires Typographic Emphasis?

In a recent post I said that along with switching from Times New Roman I’d be abandoning underlining in favor of bold.

But here’s a related question: I’ve previously used underlining to emphasize section headings, each defined term when it’s being defined, and references to exhibits and schedules. (See MSCD 12.9.) Should I use bold in all those instances, or is there anything that I should stop emphasizing?

For one thing, a reader has suggested to me that using quotation marks around a defined term when it’s being defined (see MSCD 6.14, 6.23) by itself constitutes a form of emphasis, and that adding bold would be overkill

Also, up till now I’ve emphasized references to exhibits and schedules, the idea being that doing so makes it easier to keep track of attachments. Is that a usage worth retaining? (Incidentally, that emphasis is the only reason I use initial capitals in references to exhibits and schedules. Without emphasis, there would be no reason not to treat them like section references. See MSCD 13.33.)

Such are the gripping issues I’ll need to resolve as I work on MSCD2. I welcome your suggestions.

About the author

Ken Adams is the leading authority on how to say clearly whatever you want to say in a contract. He’s author of A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, and he offers online and in-person training around the world. He’s also chief content officer of LegalSifter, Inc., a company that combines artificial intelligence and expertise to assist with review of contracts.