An Effort To Make Verbose Lawyers A Little Less Verbose

A new rule of federal appellate procedure takes effect on December 1.

sleeping with documents 2Lawyers and judges — especially judges — are familiar with the problem of overlong briefs. When you read as much as a judge (especially an appellate judge) does, oversized briefs are deadly. And despite the love that many lawyers have for going long, it’s often counterproductive; as veteran litigator Mark Herrmann recently wrote in these pages, adding words does not always add clarity.

So what is to be done about this epidemic of verbosity? Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit has declared that he just won’t read the extra pages (but he did get some criticism for that, and few judges are as gutsy as he is).

Since we’re dealing with lawyers, it’s not surprising that the answer to this problem is a new rule. Elizabeth Olson of the New York Times reports:

The Constitution of the United States clocks in at 4,543 words. Yet a number of lawyers contend that 14,000 words are barely enough to lay out their legal arguments.

That’s the maximum word count for briefs filed in federal appellate courts. For years, judges have complained that too many briefs are repetitive and full of outmoded legal jargon, and that they take up too much of their time….

[A] new word limit — which takes effect on Dec. 1 — will be 13,000 words, a reduction of 1,000 words.

Is this a wise move? There are reasonable arguments on both sides. In support of the reduction, lawyers and judges cite the phenomenon of what Judge Mary Beck Briscoe of the Tenth Circuit refers to as “needlessly lengthy” briefs, arguing that a tighter limit often forces lawyers to write better briefs. Opponents of the reduction talk about the growing complexity of cases, especially in highly technical fields of law or in matters with large factual records. Proponents of the change note in response that courts can allow for longer briefs on a case-by-case basis.

Readers, what think you?

Is lowering the word limit for opening briefs in federal appellate courts a good idea?

View Results

Sponsored

Loading ... Loading ...

Judges Push Brevity in Briefs, and Get a Torrent of Arguments [New York Times]

Earlier: Judge Kozinski Won’t Read Your ‘Fat’ Or ‘Chubby’ Brief
Is The ‘Kozinski Solution’ To The Problem Of Overlong Briefs Gaining Traction?
Prolixity And The Conservation Of Ambiguity


David Lat is the founder and managing editor of Above the Law and the author of Supreme Ambitions: A Novel. You can connect with David on Twitter (@DavidLat), LinkedIn, and Facebook, and you can reach him by email at dlat@abovethelaw.com.

Sponsored