Got a little downtime today so let's talk about something near and dear to my heart: Brief aesthetics. #legalwriting
Briefs shouldn't just be substantively good; they should look the part, too. Why? Because judges & clerks are busy; they _will_ use imperfect heuristics to decide how much time to give your brief. That includes stuff we all hate—like bluebooking—& that also includes aesthetics.
A disclaimer: aesthetics is, of course, a matter of personal judgment. You may find some of the things I'm about to rag on, like big garish underlines, beautiful and soothing. That's your prerogative! What I offer are generalizations about most readers. YMMV.
Here are two pretty briefs, one mine, one @MatthewStiegler's. Note the fonts—*not* Times New Roman. #AppellateTwitter has beat this topic to death, so all I'll say is: Many courts—including the California Courts of Appeal, the Seventh Circuit, and SCOTUS—discourage or ban TNR.
What should you use instead? It's hard to go wrong with a Century style. SCOTUS uses Century Schoolbook (free); OSG uses Century Expanded BT (prettier, imo). CA5 uses Equity, which has the advantage of being nearly as compact as TNR if you're in a court with a page limit.
Another thing: No underlines. You don't see them in books, you don't see them in SCOTUS opinions, and you don't see them in high-quality briefs. Underlines are a relic of the typewriter era. We have better tools: Font size and font weight for headings, and italics for emphasis.
I don't use all-caps because I DON'T SHOUT MY HEADINGS. I Also Abjure Initial Caps, Because They Too Make Sentences, Especially Long Ones, Hard To Read.
A note on sentence spacing: Although the modern thing to do is to use only one space between sentences, I have reluctantly returned to two spaces between sentences, for this reason:
Other minor stuff:
• Use generous margins. I go with 1.3" for 14-pt appellate briefs. Shorter lines are easier to read.
• Fully justified vs. left-justified is a vigorous debate. If you do fully justify, turn on hyphenation!
• Use hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes correctly.
In sum: A good brief is a persuasive brief, & a brief that's easy to read & looks like some care went into its construction is—even if only marginally—more persuasive.

If you want to read more about making briefs pretty, I strongly recommend @mbutterick's Typography for Lawyers.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Athul K. Acharya

Athul K. Acharya Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AthulKAcharya

7 Jun
Good QI decision from CA10 last Friday. The facts, as the court said, shock the conscience: A prosecutor intentionally fed a medical examiner false info to get a suicide reclassified as a homicide, & then used that to put plaintiff behind bars.

No QI. 1/ ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19… ` The prosecutor made repre...
Just as good as the no-QI result is how the court got there. First, it declined to engage in a "scavenger hunt for prior cases with precisely the same facts": /2 A right is clearly establis...The constitutional violatio...entitled to qualified immun...
Better yet, the court held that this was a Hope v. Pelzer / Taylor v. Riojas "obvious" QI case: "Any reasonable prosecutor [should] understand that providing a medical examiner fabricated evidence & then putting him on the stand to testify [falsely] offends the Constitution." 3/ This is also an “obvious ca...The Supreme Court rejected ...This proposition applies wi...
Read 4 tweets
14 Aug 20
If anyone's having a slow Friday afternoon, you might watch this space for some tea-spilling in the next 20 minutes.
First off, our reply brief in support of a preliminary injunction is on file. You can see a (slightly redacted) version below. scribd.com/document/47249…
Second, here's an email from Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli when he hears the Court granted our TRO. He's not happy! It's "offensive"! But not to worry: It "shouldn't affect anything we're doing."

Hear that, federal agents? DON'T CHANGE A THING. Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(