2 ms·
I think it's a mistake to have rules about filings. Maybe it's distracting, but if the filing has been done, there should be no reason for the court not to read
by impossiblefork 1y ago
I think it's a mistake to have rules about filings. Maybe it's distracting, but if the filing has been done, there should be no reason for the court not to read it and make a decision based on the text.
Procedure or order can't be more important than deciding cases.
- voidfunc 1y agoNah this is not the place to let folks get cutesy. If anything the standards should be strict and uniform.
- impossiblefork 1y agoYes, the dragon is terrible and it's very inappropriate, but someone can't behave sensibly may still be someone whose case the courts must hear.
- alwa 1y agoThey’re more than willing to hear the case. It’s the lawyer, not the complainant, who the court is chastising. If anything, it scans like the court is concerned, like you are, that this vulnerable person’s case isn’t being presented with the seriousness it deserves.
- impossiblefork 1y agoYes, but if a filing is sensible they should not care. It is reasonable to forbid further such filings, or require it to be re-filed, but artificially delaying something for the sake of seriousness or decorum is not to take it seriously. If it is a serious matter you deal with what you have.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- striking 1y agoIf you allow one person to get away with this, others may see it as an invitation to do worse. Filings are often a matter of immutable public record and it makes sense that there should be rules as to what goes into them. What is the act of deciding cases if not a carefully constructed procedure meant to keep order? What is the harm of telling a lawyer to try again, this time following the rules?
- impossiblefork 1y agoYou hear the case, however it's presented, and then you decide. In Swedish courts the court evaluates evidence as it likes. If the judges and sort-of-half-judge-half-jury-Nämdemän agree that something can be concluded, then they're allowed to conclude that. Obviously procedure is useful, but hearing the complaint is more important.
- striking 1y agoIt's not about procedure for procedure's sake. It's about establishing a precedent that unnecessary content should be left out, so that complaints are always conveyed and heard sincerely.
- smelendez 1y agoBut it's simple enough to regenerate it without the watermark. Also, if it's actively annoying the judge, it's in the lawyer and client's best interest to fix it once and give the judge time to clear his head instead of repeating the issue.
- tjohns 1y agoAll the court is asking the lawyer to do is to re-file without the distracting formatting. It's not like they're throwing the entire case out. It'll still get read. It's also worth noting that the local rules for just about every court prescribe document formatting - so it's not like any of this should come as a surprise to the attorney. Putting this another way: If a professor tells you to submit an essay in 12 pt Times New Roman, and you turn it in using 16 pt Comic Sans - it's entirely within the professor's right to say the formatting is so distracting that it makes their job difficult and ask you to print out a revised version before they'll grade it.
- istjohn 1y agoBy my reading, the judge isn't even making him refile. They just said to not do it again.
- toast0 1y agoUniform formatting makes it easier to evaluate a case on the text and not the formatting, though.