SCOTUS Updates Rules of Practice

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

The United States Supreme Court has updated its rules of practice, effective July 1, 2013 [.pdf]. The changes are relatively minor, such that the Court did not make them available for comment before adopting them. The changes include:

  • Rule 12.6: Providing that a party aligned with and supporting the grant of a petition has 30 days to file a supporting brief. The party must still notify the court of its intent to file within 20 days, and cannot get an enlargement of time to file.
  • Rules 15 & 18: Increasing the number of days the Clerk waits to distribute petitions to the Justices, which gives Petitioners more time to get a reply brief served and included in the distribution packet.
  • Rule 29.3: requiring electronic transmission of Petitions to other parties in most instances.
  • Rules 37.2(a) and 3(a): Clarifying that only one signatory to an amicus brief need get consent, eliminating the need for additional signatories to file consents.
  • Rule 39: Allowing attorneys who are appointed by a state court to appear without filing an affidavit of indigency.
  • Rule 28.8: Requiring everyone to argue before the Court to be an attorney.

This article explains the interesting backstory of the Court’s new Rule 28.8, including the fascinating story of the last non-lawyer to argue (and win!) before the Supreme Court.

Updated 11th Circuit Rules and Pro Se Handbook

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Eleventh Circuit has updated its rules [.pdf], with many of the new rules aimed at bringing the rules in line with the realities of CM/ECF electronic filing. As explained in the cover letter, the changes:

  • Add a new rule requiring counsel to file documents electronically using the Court’s Electronic Case Files (ECF) system. 11th Cir. R. 25-3.
  • Add a new rule to address electronic brief uploading when counsel are exempt from using the ECF system. 11th Cir. R. 31-5.
  • Delete IOP 11, Electronic Transmission of Emergency Petition for Rehearing En Banc (following FRAP 35) as unnecessary in light of mandatory electronic filing.
  • Add reference to the John C. Godbold Federal Building. IOP 1, Physical Facilities (following FRAP 47).
  • Clarify that copies are only required when certain items are filed in paper. 11th Cir. R. 22-4(a)(3); 11th Cir. R. 27-1(a)(1); IOP 6, Citation of Supplemental Authorities (following FRAP 28); IOP 1, Citation of Supplemental Authorities (following FRAP 29);
    IOP, Motions for Damages and Costs (following FRAP 38); 11th Cir. R. 40-5.
  • Substitute the term “non-argument” for “screening” in various rules and IOPs. 11th Cir. R. 31-6(b); 11th Cir. R. 34-3(e); IOP 1, Non-Argument Calendar (following FRAP 34); 11th Cir. R. 46-10(b); IOP 9c, Non-Argument Calendar Appeals, and IOP 9d, Oral Argument Calendar Appeals (following FRAP 47).

As with prior updates, the new rules thankfully come with a guide to replace pages with change without having to trash your entire prior copy of the rules.

Along with the Rules, the Court has also updated its pro se handbook [.pdf] to reflect the new procedures.

Florida Supreme Court Implements Electronic Filing and Other Rule Changes

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Florida Supreme Court, in a revised Order SC11-399 (Oct. 18, 2012) [.pdf], has adopted a host of rule changes at every court level in order to implement electronic filing and service. The centerpiece of the change to electronic filing are new Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.520 (Documents) and 2.525 (Electronic Filing). Together, these two rules govern the filing of any document that is a “court record.” Rule 2.520 is the “why,” defining electronic records, and Rule 2.525 is the “how-to”, explaining the nuts and bolts of how to file electronically. So be sure to read both very carefully.

To implement these new system-wide rules, the Court also adopted changes to the rules of civil, criminal, family, probate, small claims, and appellate procedure.

Electronic filing becomes mandatory in civil, probate, small claims, and family law divisions of the trial courts, as well as for appeals to the circuit courts in these categories of cases, on April 1, 2013, at 12:01 a.m. For criminal, traffic, and juvenile divisions of the trial courts, as well as for appeals to the circuit court in these categories of cases, the effective date is October 1, 2013 at 12:01 a.m.

The changes are generally technical, but wide-sweeping. The rules affected include Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020 (Definitions), 9.110 (Appeal Proceedings to Review Final Orders); 9.120 (Discretionary Proceedings to Review Decisions of District Courts of Appeal); 9.125 (Review of Trial Court Orders and Judgments Certified by the District Courts of Appeal as Requiring Immediate Resolution by the Supreme Court); 9.130 (Proceedings to Review Non-Final Orders and Specific Final Orders); 9.140 (Appeal Proceedings in Criminal Cases); RULE 9.141. (Review Proceedings in Collateral or Postconviction Criminal Cases); RULE 9.142. (Procedures for REview in Death Penalty Cases); RULE 9.145 (Appeal Proceedings in Juvenile Delinquency Cases); RULE 9.146. (Appeal Proceedings in Juvenile Dependency and Termination of Parental Rights Cases); RULE 9.160. (Discretionary Proceedings to Review Decisions of County Courts); 9.180 (Appeal Proceedings to Review Workers’ Compensation Cases); 9.200 (the Record); 9.210 (Briefs); 9.220 (Appendix); 9.360 (Joinder); 9.500 (Advisory Opinions to the Governor); 9.510 (advisory Opinions to Attorney General); 9.900 (forms).

I encourage every practicing attorney to read SC11-399 very carefully. The most unfortunate change, in my view, is that the Court renumbered the definition of Rendition, from 9.020(h) to 9.020(i). The new 9.020(h) could easily have been put at the end, but now practitioners must be aware to both cite to the correct new subdivision when citing the rule on rendition, and to research both the old and the new numbering system when conducting research. I don’t see why adding such confusion over an already high-confusion area of the rules was really necessary.