Goldilocks: Saving The World, One Brief At A Time
In previous posts (e.g., like this), I have kvetched about court rules that require us to file ugly briefs. Now I'll kvetch about court rules that require us to destroy the planet along with Western Civilization as we know it.
I know, I've told you a million times never to exaggerate, but hear me out. After the break, find out why we need to change court briefing rules, not only to save ourselves from ugly briefs, but also to forestall our descent into a Cormack-McCarthy-like post-apocalyptic nether world.
If an archeologist 10,000 years from now were to find a copy of the Texas or Federal Rules Appellate Procedure and some sample briefs and appendices, he or she might well conclude that the legal profession’s primary purpose was to deforest the planet and belch hydrocarbon emissions in producing and transporting paper.
What other reason could there be for leaving over half every printed page with white space, or leaving the back sides of each page wholly blank? And what were these huge fonts? And why was nearly every brief 50 pages long, even if the lawyers did not seem to have much to say?
I mentioned in a recent post how using the Goldilocks Brief format makes the end product more readable and mercifully shorter for the reader. As it turns out it also makes it mercifully shorter for the planet. Less paper is used.
My document design sensei, Professor Ruth Anne Robbins has a little paper called “Conserving the Canvas” (pdf) in which she makes the following observations:
- Every 8,333.3 sheets of virgin paper consumes about one tree--not to mention the water, fuel, etc. producing and transporting the paper.
- This means the one, intermediate appellate court where she lives is consuming hundreds of trees each year. Multiply that by the other courts in the country and . . . . yuck.
- Double sided printing would immediately cut the consumption in half. Some rules allow it (such as here in Texas), but I rarely see it done.
- 1.5 line spacing (such as in the Goldilocks brief) will cut the volume by another 20 to 25%, depending upon other aspects of document design like footnotes and margins.
- Switching to word counts with flexible font sizing rather than page limits could reduce it further--and reduce court work loads because large or monospaced fonts make for slower reading.
How much paper--and how many trees--could be saved if we just printed both sides? How much more if we adopted the Goldilocks format? And how much more if lawyers were given some sensible flexibility in their document design, subject to a word count limit so the courts would not be subjected to “The Never Ending Story,” complete with footnotes?
I know, I know. E-filing is going to save us all and put a chicken in every pot. But it's not here yet in Texas, and don't get me started about courts that accept e-filing and demand paper copies for the judges, or the differences between reading paper and reading on a screen.
Is there any reason other than habit not to change the rules to lessen the impact of our writing upon the planet? Surely, the quality of our prose isn’t worth the price of a tree.
Welcome to the Appellate Record-- --the online community and virtual watering hole for appellate lawyers and anyone else who is comfortable with their inner law nerd.
I'm with you 100% on this one. My jurisdiction allows electronic filing of appellate briefs (written in an incredibly ugly Courier New 13 font), but then requires multiple copies be printed, bound, and sent to them by US mail. If paper briefs are still required, then there is little benefit to the electronic filing system.
Our profession is addicted to paper. Lawyers engage in reckless and wasteful paper consumption habits. And don't get me started about lawyers who waste time and paper sending me letters through the mail about things that could have been handled faster and easier with a short email. I realize that sending the client a copy of a letter printed on fancy letterhead makes the clients complain slightly less than the complain about paying for an email, but it is time for lawyers to just deal with it.
I have moved to operating a paperless law office as much as possible, but until everyone participates it is hard for any one lawyer to do it fully. Still, most of my files are now electronic, and I only print what is necessary.
One day the system will reluctantly become paperless, but it is probably still going to take a while to get there.
William, thanks so much for such an enthusiastic comment, and congrats on being so in the vanguard of going paperless. I am more paperless than I was 5 years ago, but I am still a work in progress. I fear that the profession will not reach paper-free Nirvana until the kids who are coming out of law school now are the senior appellate judges.