Definition
In civil procedure, a reply is a pleading filed by the plaintiff (or other initiating party) in response to a defendant's answer or affirmative defense. It is the third pleading in a common-law sequence: declaration/complaint → answer → reply. Where a defendant raises new matter in the answer — such as an affirmative defense or counterclaim — the reply permits the plaintiff to address that new matter directly rather than leaving it to stand unanswered.
The term carries two distinct senses in legal usage:
1. Pleading sense. A formal written pleading, filed as of right or by leave of court, responding to the defendant's answer or to new matter raised therein. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a reply is required only when the court orders one, or when the plaintiff responds to a counterclaim designated as such. At common law, the reply was a standard and expected stage of pleading.
2. Argument sense. At trial or oral argument, the closing speech or rebuttal argument delivered by the plaintiff's counsel after defendant's counsel has argued. This usage is especially prominent in English practice, where the "right of reply" — the right to address the jury or court last — was a substantive procedural entitlement with its own rules.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A written or spoken response; part of a conversation. Something given in response to another.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To make a return in words or writing; to respond; to answer. Used figuratively for any responsive action.
The legal term is narrower and more formal than everyday usage suggests. In common speech, any response is a "reply." In procedural law, a reply is a specific pleading with defined timing, scope, and consequences — filing an untimely reply or raising matter in a reply that belongs in an answer can have binding effects. The argument-sense usage maps more naturally to ordinary language but still carries technical weight regarding who has the right to speak last and when.
Common Confusion
Reply vs. Answer: The answer is the defendant's response to the plaintiff's complaint. The reply is the plaintiff's response to the answer. These are sequential, not interchangeable. Researchers in older sources sometimes encounter "reply" used loosely to mean any responsive pleading; context determines which is intended.
Reply vs. Replication: In older common-law and equity pleading, "replication" was the technical term for what modern practice calls a "reply." The two terms refer to the same pleading stage but belong to different eras and systems. See REPLICATION.
Reply vs. Rejoinder: After the plaintiff files a reply (or replication), the defendant may respond with a rejoinder — the next pleading in the common-law sequence. The two terms are frequently encountered together in historical pleading discussions and should not be conflated.
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research trap is temporal: what "reply" meant in 1850 is not what it means under modern procedural codes. The common-law pleading sequence — declaration, plea, replication, rejoinder, surrejoinder, rebutter, surrebutter — was elaborate and strictly ordered. "Reply" in a pre-code source may refer specifically to the replication stage within that system, or loosely to any plaintiff's responsive pleading. Code pleading reforms of the nineteenth century (beginning with the Field Code in New York, 1848) collapsed many of these stages. Federal Rules practice further simplified the scheme: under FRCP 7(a), a reply is only required when ordered or when responding to a counterclaim.
Researchers working with English materials face additional complexity. In English practice, the "right of reply" in criminal prosecutions — particularly Crown prosecutions — was a procedural privilege with distinct rules depending on whether evidence had been called. Bouvier flags this directly. This English usage is almost entirely absent from American sources and can mislead researchers who encounter it in comparative or historical materials.
The argument-sense meaning of reply remains active in both American and English practice and appears frequently in appellate procedure discussions and trial manuals. It is distinct from the pleading-sense meaning and the two should not be conflated when reading procedural rules or court orders.
Corpus researchers should note that Law Mind sources spanning the transition from common-law pleading to code pleading will use "reply" inconsistently. Black's (both editions) defines the term to capture both senses but does not fully account for the post-FRCP landscape. Rapalje & Lawrence tracks the common-law meaning most closely.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (both editions) offers substantially identical definitions, reflecting the transitional moment between common-law pleading and code reform. Both editions correctly identify the pleading sense and the argument sense, attributing the general definition to Sweet. Neither edition fully grapples with the displacement of "reply" by "replication" in pre-code sources or the narrowing of the term's role under code pleading.
Rapalje & Lawrence aligns with Black's on the general definition but includes references to English practice materials (Smith, Chitty, Pollock, Woodfall) that situate the term firmly in common-law pleading doctrine. This makes Rapalje & Lawrence more useful for researchers working with English or pre-code American sources.
Bouvier's contribution is narrower but valuable: it addresses the English right-of-reply in criminal prosecutions and cross-references related doctrines (opening and closing, right to begin, burden of proof), signaling that the argument-sense meaning of reply was procedurally significant in its own right, not merely a colloquial usage.
None of the historical dictionaries adequately addresses the modern FRCP context, where the reply is an exceptional rather than standard pleading. Researchers should not rely on these sources for current federal practice.
Jurisdictional Note
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a reply to an answer is not filed as a matter of course and requires either a court order or arises in response to a counterclaim. Many state systems retain broader reply practice, particularly where affirmative defenses must be formally addressed. English practice preserves both the pleading sense and the argument-sense right of reply with rules that differ materially from American procedure.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Pleadings; Common-Law Pleading System; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — Pleading Structure