« Prolixity is the soul of witlessness. | Main | Wayne’s document-design cheat sheet »

09 July 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d9ec69e200e553ac3d9a8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tip of the day: Proofread appendices:

» The Importance of Proofreading Appendices from Legal Profession Blog
Posted by Alan Childress Quoting West's Headnote of the Day for July 9, Ray Ward and a commenter at the (new) legal writer blog observe that slapping on appendices to a filing is often hurried and harried -- yet may [Read More]

Comments

celia

I agree. Those comments were never meant to be read by anyone outside of that office.

Hopefully, when the other side's brief arrives, several things immediately happen. The response date for the brief is docketed, and someone makes "work copies" for everyone who is working on the case. "Work copies" are used for cite-checking and making notes or comments. They are drafts that are meant to remain in-house and, if kept, should be filed separately from the pleadings or main file.

The original and its exhibits belong in the "main file." The original is what I would use to make an exhibit or appendix to any document used outside of the office or filed with the court.

To avoid this mistake in the future, perhaps it would help to stamp "COPY" in red ink on each work copy, as well as write the receiving attorney's name on the first page to make it easier to identify whose notes are whose? Or even better, stamp the first page as "PRIVILEGE - Attorney Work Product?" Or use different colored paper for work drafts?

My guess is that a last-minute flurry to get the brief finalized, copied, and filed on time is part of the cause of this proofreading error.

Yosarrian

I agree as well. I note that I've written far less decorous things in the margins of opinions, which fortunately never found their way into any record. The judges appear to be alarmingly thin-skinned in this case.

Lloyd

The language from the opinion is as follows:

A final point. We are disturbed that the Department of Justice, in submitting Judge Hart's opinion as an appendix to its brief, as it was required to do by Fed.R.App.P. 30(a), submitted a copy on which the Department's lawyer had scribbled critical marginalia, such as the word “WRONG” beside several findings of Judge Hart with which she took particular issue. This is indecorous and unprofessional conduct, which we have noticed in other cases and remark publicly today in the hope it will not recur.

It seems that this was less designed to embarrass the individual lawyers than to show the judges' displeasure with this kind of garbage appearing over and over.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.