3 ms·

It isn’t padding. It’s judges. If your lawyer can lose a case over formatting (and they can), your lawyer can get sued for malpractice for screwing up formatt

by Digory 4y ago

It isn’t padding. It’s judges. If your lawyer can lose a case over formatting (and they can), your lawyer can get sued for malpractice for screwing up formatting. Why do judges insist on arcane, high level published documents? Judges benefit from repeat players — the formatting helps them routinize their analysis and spot the careless lawyer, or the one unfamiliar with local law. It’s an effective filter of the arguments.

bavila 4y ago
> If your lawyer can lose a case over formatting (and they can)... It's true that there are certain typographical requirements that must be met in certain court filings, but I have also seen lawyers bikeshed in Word by obsessing over things as menial as left vs. justified text alignment (and then even decide how to rephrase language after changing to justified alignment because they don't like the rivers[1] they are now seeing). Unless such requirements are codified in court rules, then it is not something that would win/lose a case, and it is just a billable-hour timesink. > Why do judges insist on arcane, high level published documents? Judges benefit from repeat players... You may be giving them too much credit in their cunning. It's just easier and more efficient to navigate a complex system when we're all operating off of the same framework -- no different than programming. I've worked as a law clerk and attorney, and, yes, judges will have their biases as to which attorneys they are more likely to trust than others, but that occurs through building actual rapport in court, not by following formatting rules. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography)
- rayiner 4y ago
  > It's true that there are certain typographical requirements that must be met in certain court filings, but I have also seen lawyers bikeshed in Word by obsessing over things as menial as left vs. justified text alignment (and then even decide how to rephrase language after changing to justified alignment because they don't like the rivers[1] they are now seeing) Lawyers fight over this stuff for the same reason programs fight over 4 spaces versus 8 spaces indentation. Judges have to read hundreds if not thousands of pages of briefing a week. Making it a little easier for the judge to follow your point does make a difference. And will it win or lose cases? Probably not. But how often do appellate briefs argue that the trial judge “overlooked” or “misapprehended” some argument? Stuff gets lost in the shuffle and sometimes not putting the best version of your argument out there leads to bad rulings. And just as in software, spending a little time up front to learn a standardized style and best practices means that in practice it should be muscle memory and take very little time to churn out briefs that look nice and are easy to read typographically. (Also, ragged justification is a crutch for people who don’t know how to use soft hyphens. There’s a reason you never see a magazine or book with ragged justification.)
- Digory 4y ago
  Yes, there's required typography, and there's what you might call "learned" typography. You read Butterick to look more polished, and to show judges you're educated. You fight over fonts because one font might be more legible than another. And you fight over two spaces after a period, or use (cleaned up) to show that you're in the forefront of the practice. > You may be giving them too much credit in their cunning. No one has to be especially cunning; it's just a tradition that develops because it works well enough. The American tradition weeds out people who don't have an incentive to help the system be efficient. The English system regulates Barristers even more. If the loss of your license doesn't mean anything (because there won't be a next time for you) then a lot of the rules lose their sting. Judges do spot carpetbaggers and neophytes through their briefing. You've never seen a pro se brief that used CAPS FOR SHOUTING, or six different fonts? All classic marks of someone outside the normal system. And even among lawyers, there are tells. In my jurisdiction, we don't use line numbers. A Californian who shows up with line numbers in the briefing is a dead giveaway, and vice versa. Granted, a handful of times, pro se plaintiffs won at the Supreme Court.[1] But those are exceptions that prove the rule. I don't think it should be this way, but knowing the local judges' typography preferences counts as 'law practice.' For now. [1] https://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/r-i-p-pro-se-litigants-before-the-supreme-court/ https://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/r-i-p-pro-se-litigants-befor...

by Digory 4y ago

bavila 4y ago

> If your lawyer can lose a case over formatting (and they can)... It's true that there are certain typographical requirements that must be met in certain court filings, but I have also seen lawyers bikeshed in Word by obsessing over things as menial as left vs. justified text alignment (and then even decide how to rephrase language after changing to justified alignment because they don't like the rivers[1] they are now seeing). Unless such requirements are codified in court rules, then it is not something that would win/lose a case, and it is just a billable-hour timesink. > Why do judges insist on arcane, high level published documents? Judges benefit from repeat players... You may be giving them too much credit in their cunning. It's just easier and more efficient to navigate a complex system when we're all operating off of the same framework -- no different than programming. I've worked as a law clerk and attorney, and, yes, judges will have their biases as to which attorneys they are more likely to trust than others, but that occurs through building actual rapport in court, not by following formatting rules. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography)

rayiner 4y ago
> It's true that there are certain typographical requirements that must be met in certain court filings, but I have also seen lawyers bikeshed in Word by obsessing over things as menial as left vs. justified text alignment (and then even decide how to rephrase language after changing to justified alignment because they don't like the rivers[1] they are now seeing) Lawyers fight over this stuff for the same reason programs fight over 4 spaces versus 8 spaces indentation. Judges have to read hundreds if not thousands of pages of briefing a week. Making it a little easier for the judge to follow your point does make a difference. And will it win or lose cases? Probably not. But how often do appellate briefs argue that the trial judge “overlooked” or “misapprehended” some argument? Stuff gets lost in the shuffle and sometimes not putting the best version of your argument out there leads to bad rulings. And just as in software, spending a little time up front to learn a standardized style and best practices means that in practice it should be muscle memory and take very little time to churn out briefs that look nice and are easy to read typographically. (Also, ragged justification is a crutch for people who don’t know how to use soft hyphens. There’s a reason you never see a magazine or book with ragged justification.)
Digory 4y ago
Yes, there's required typography, and there's what you might call "learned" typography. You read Butterick to look more polished, and to show judges you're educated. You fight over fonts because one font might be more legible than another. And you fight over two spaces after a period, or use (cleaned up) to show that you're in the forefront of the practice. > You may be giving them too much credit in their cunning. No one has to be especially cunning; it's just a tradition that develops because it works well enough. The American tradition weeds out people who don't have an incentive to help the system be efficient. The English system regulates Barristers even more. If the loss of your license doesn't mean anything (because there won't be a next time for you) then a lot of the rules lose their sting. Judges do spot carpetbaggers and neophytes through their briefing. You've never seen a pro se brief that used CAPS FOR SHOUTING, or six different fonts? All classic marks of someone outside the normal system. And even among lawyers, there are tells. In my jurisdiction, we don't use line numbers. A Californian who shows up with line numbers in the briefing is a dead giveaway, and vice versa. Granted, a handful of times, pro se plaintiffs won at the Supreme Court.[1] But those are exceptions that prove the rule. I don't think it should be this way, but knowing the local judges' typography preferences counts as 'law practice.' For now. [1] https://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/r-i-p-pro-se-litigants-before-the-supreme-court/ https://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/r-i-p-pro-se-litigants-befor...