Typography in Appellate Briefs

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Rules geeks also tend to be typography geeks. It’s no wonder, then, that I adore Typography for Lawyers. This lovely website is chock full of suggestions for making your briefs more readable, and yes, just plain more beautiful. Sadly, the site correctly points out that one does not really have much leeway when it comes to briefs filed in the Florida appellate courts — your choices are Times New Roman or Courier, and that’s it — but it does contain many important points on basic typography. I knew I would agree with the site when I saw Lesson One. Straight quotes are my big pet peeve, right up there with people using the open single quote mark when they mean to use an apostrophe. (OK, the open single quote for apostrophe is worse. But barely. And I firmly blame Microsoft Word for much of this problem in the world).

Most of the lessons here I learned in college, when I took a magazine publishing class. One of my text books was a small softback called The Mac is Not a Typewriter. I am sure it is painfully out of date as far as its statements about the use of a 15 year old Macintosh computer are concerned. But the typography lessons I learned from that book and in that class were timeless.

Am I able to implement all of those lessons in every brief? No. For example, I agree that one should use a single space after a period when using a proportional font, but because most people don’t agree, I am always told things look wrong if I do it that way, and I have just stopped fighting the tide on that one. (I wish I could walk the walk on my own blog, but the reality is, that double-space is just too ingrained in my hands right now to go back and forth). But knowing the right way, even if you make a conscious choice not to follow it, is far better than laboring along in ignorance. So check it out.

Bye Bye, Paper Filing (in Tally, at least)

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The First District Court of Appeal, as of today, no longer wants attorneys to file papers with its clerk’s office. Last month, the Court stopped requiring attorneys to file both a paper copy and an electronic copy of a paper. Today, the switch over is complete and attorneys with eDCA logins are required to file all papers — briefs, motions, docketing statements — using the eDCA Portal.

Documents must be filed in .pdf form. ¶ 4 Gone is the fine art of the cover letter to the clerk — the Court specifically asks that parties refrain from sending such transmittal letters. ¶ 8 One need not have an original signature on an e-filed brief, but signing up for eDCA filing access means that you are agreeing that any document uploaded on your password carries the same force as one bearing your signature. ¶ 12.

Don’t expect any paper back from the First DCA, either. In the near future, all mandates, opinions, and orders will be e-mailed to the parties. ¶ 10

E-filing briefs? No problem. But give yourself plenty of time to ensure that your appendix is in uploadable form. The other down side — or plus side, depending on how desperate you are on a given day — is that with the advent of e-filing, your brief is deemed filed at any time up until 11:59 pm on a given day.

Finally, don’t forget to serve opposing counsel and prepare an appropriate certificate of service. ¶ 14 The eDCA portal is slick, but it isn’t quite slick enough to take care of sending out service copies for you.

Transcription Costs Battle Leads to Mandamus Against Manatee Clerk

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

In yet another sign that the clerks of court are feeling pinched by budget cuts and rising case loads, the Manatee County Clerk tried to cut costs by sending the parties to certain criminal appeals only electronic copies of trial transcripts, and not traditional paper copies. But both the State and the public defenders missed their paper copies, and they sought a writ of mandamus against the Clerk to force him to provide them with paper copies. In State, Office of Atty Gen’l v. Hon. R.B. “Chips” Shore, Clerk, Manatee County, 2D10-1932 (July 28, 2010) [.pdf] the Second DCA concluded that the litigants were correct, and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure require the Clerk, not the criminal appellant or court reporter, to bear the costs of making additional copies of the transcript.

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(f) provides for an exceptional procedure in certain publicly-funded cases whereby the court reporter files only the transcripts with the clerk, who must then make copies for distribution to the parties: “The lower tribunal may by administrative order in publicly-funded cases direct the clerk of the lower tribunal rather than the approved court reporter or approved transcriptionist to prepare the necessary copies of the original transcripts.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(f)(2)(F). The Court analyzed the phrase “copies of the original transcripts” with reference to portions of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration that define what constitutes the record, and concluded that Rule 2.535 defines transcripts as being bound and printed documents.

What fascinates me about this decision, though, is the underlying policy battles at play. The Clerk claimed he had to go paperless, pursuant to a Supreme Court administrative order. He relied, too, on a state court administrative order. The public defender claimed it did not have the resources to print its own transcripts. In the end, the one provision of the rules in isolation supported the clerk’s take, but the rules as a whole supported the litigants’ view.