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 educ

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...