Ever since 1997 when the "new" Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure came into effect, long-winded lawyers in Texas
have perfected all manner of chicanery to cram words into the page
limits for Texas appellate briefs.
Times they are 'a changin'.
The Supreme Court's proposed new rules impose word limits on Texas
appellate briefs and petitions. This is a much better way to
control the amount of content in a brief without destroying its
readability.
Page limitations just invite unreadable briefs. Lawyers will
simply cram in more content by choosing a narrow font (like Times
New Roman) and destroying white space by smearing in excessive
footnotes and using the longest permissible line length.
So word limits are good. But one proposed change in the
court's rules actually impairs readability.
After the jump a plea to abandon 14 point fonts. Please consider
this my public comment.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those whipper
snappers who mocks his elders and their presbyopia. I too must hunt
for my reading glasses to read the paper. Those big letters on my
iPad sure are legible.
But legibility and readability are not the same thing.
Legibility is being able to recognize letters clearly in order
to sound out word by word. That's why we use huge, clearly
rendered fonts for children who are learning to read.
That's why we use large, sans-serif fonts for freeway
signs
Freeway signs with few words and simple ideas do not perform
their function if they are not rapidly legible from a long way off
at a high rate of speed.
But briefs with 14,000 words need to be readable in addition to
being legible. The eye needs to be able to move smoothly across the
top shapes of the letters and get from line to line without fixation pauses.
A large body of scientific research indicates
exactly what kind of type setting promotes readability and
understanding. It is NOT double spaced 14 point font with one
inch margins on a line of type that is 6.5 inches long.
That is just a choice left over from the age of the Smith Corona
typewriter. No professional typographer would choose such a layout
to create a readable, professionally typeset product.
Go ahead. Go to Barnes & Noble or Amazon or any bookshop of
your choice and attempt to find something written in 14 point
double spaced fonts with a 6.5 inch line length. Download a book to
your iPad. It will NOT be in 14 point double spaced font.
Readable text follows the
typographer's golden ratio, starting with a font size of 9
to 11 point font and keeping the line length and line heights
shorter and in proportion to the size of the font. In a
former post, I
re-configured a Texas opinion to use that kind of
typography.
If presbyopia or other vision problems make that illegible, fix
the reader. Correct the vision. Adjust the magnification on the
reader's iPad. Don't destroy the basic
typography.
That's how the Supreme Court of the United States does it.
And they are not any younger or hipper than our judges in Texas.
Quite the opposite. They are older and blinder.
And yet they manage a pile of briefs with type quite small by
the standards of the proposed rules. They don't use Supreme
Court typography just to be unique or cool (even though it is ever
so cool). The typography they use is the typography chosen by a
professional print shop.
Because it is readable.
This is readable:
This
Is
Legible.
They are not the same thing.
We don't have to go all the way to Supreme Court typography
if that's too severe. Something like my
Goldilocks Brief might be workable with its wider margins, 1.5
line spacing and extra white space between paragraphs.
Let's have readable briefs and readable slip opinions.
Please . . . no kindergarten fonts.
See lawyer
read.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.
A discussion on some practical tools lawyers can use, or consider using, in order to decrease defense costs and to increase the chance of concluding a case sooner rather than later.
Carlton Fields recently published a survey (pdf) of 368 general counsel and other in-house counsel at major companies across more than 25 industries regarding the class actions they faced in 2012 and their expectations for 2013.
A financial services organization is a party to a litigation in which plaintiffs are seeking information concerning business practices that impacts a number of the organization's customers.
Twitter
Facebook
Digg 
Ever since 1997 when the "new" Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure came into effect, long-winded lawyers in Texas
have perfected all manner of chicanery to cram words into the page
limits for Texas appellate briefs. 
