![]() So does that mean you should go ahead and default to Times New Roman - because that’s what judges “expect?” No. Most courts simply require a “legible” font of a particular size (usually at least 12-point). Of course, most courts don’t go that far. Supreme Court has long required lawyers to use a font from the “Century family” (e.g., Century Schoolbook). (See pages 3-5 here) The appellate court in Connecticut actually requires briefs to use Arial or Univers. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, for example, advises lawyers against using Times New Roman. In fact, there’s evidence to the contrary. Maybe judges, after seeing thousands of court filings, simply get “used to” and “expect” these briefs to look a certain way.īut that doesn’t mean that that’s how judges want things to be. There’s no reason to shake it up.” And maybe this is true. “That’s what judges are used to it’s what they expect. “Just leave it on Times New Roman,” the experienced lawyer said. ![]() ![]() But I had a conversation with an experienced lawyer about font choices in appellate briefs, and this experienced lawyer was trying to tell me that font doesn’t matter. I thought by now it was becoming common knowledge that lawyers should avoid using Times New Roman as the font for their legal documents.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |