"Schiess's basic document design for lawyers"
"Schiess's basic document design for lawyers" at Legalwriting.net.
Although I agree in principle, I don't think it works in practice.
For example, I don't think it is practical to use more than one font in a given document, since too many readers will not expect it and will be momentarily confused when they see it, making skimming harder, not easier.
The same goes for using hyphenation with the justification of text. If you are not expecting that, it takes a minute for your brain to connect the single word split across the end of one line and the beginning of another.
By and large, if you follow Schiess' advice, you'll end up with work that looks a lot like a formal appellate court opinion, with a professional appearance that rewards speedreaders (particularly when you use wide margins and single spacing). Problem is, while lawyers (especially appellate lawyers) may be used to reading that, judges themselves are not -- they are used to reading what lawyers submit to them, which usually defaults to Times New Roman 12-point, double spacing, full justification without hyphens. Most of us are stuck only making subtle changes to that framework.
As an aside: I completely agree with underlining, italics and boldface. I particularly dislike underlining case names, which causes the eye to focus on a bunch of irrelevant proper nouns in the citation rather than the real focus of the document, which is the argument presented. Yet, very few judges expect bold in briefs and many believe that case names must be underlined. So, without a formal order (most local rules require only 12-point font and double spacing), we carry on...
Although I agree in principle, I don't think it works in practice.
For example, I don't think it is practical to use more than one font in a given document, since too many readers will not expect it and will be momentarily confused when they see it, making skimming harder, not easier.
The same goes for using hyphenation with the justification of text. If you are not expecting that, it takes a minute for your brain to connect the single word split across the end of one line and the beginning of another.
By and large, if you follow Schiess' advice, you'll end up with work that looks a lot like a formal appellate court opinion, with a professional appearance that rewards speedreaders (particularly when you use wide margins and single spacing). Problem is, while lawyers (especially appellate lawyers) may be used to reading that, judges themselves are not -- they are used to reading what lawyers submit to them, which usually defaults to Times New Roman 12-point, double spacing, full justification without hyphens. Most of us are stuck only making subtle changes to that framework.
As an aside: I completely agree with underlining, italics and boldface. I particularly dislike underlining case names, which causes the eye to focus on a bunch of irrelevant proper nouns in the citation rather than the real focus of the document, which is the argument presented. Yet, very few judges expect bold in briefs and many believe that case names must be underlined. So, without a formal order (most local rules require only 12-point font and double spacing), we carry on...
Thank you for your thoughtful take on my recommendations. Two thoughts:
1. I'm sure you'd agree that many of the hamstringing conventions lawyers feel compelled to follow are driven by what judges expect. Yet knowing "what judges expect" often means assuming--or relying on anecdotes. I long for some empirical research on this. I daresay most judges would actually prefer briefs to look like the other texts they read: books, newspapers, magazine--all of which are laid out much more like my recommendations than like typical briefs. Until someone (a legal-writing teacher, perhaps ;-)) does that research, real lawyers should follow the advice of real lawyers, not academics.
2. You've probably figured out that my recommendations are too general. I ought to have different recommendations for transactional documents, court documents, correspondence, and so on.
Take care.
I certainly would agree with (1), and I'd go even farther. The law is such a conservative discipline that, not only do lawyers/judges fear stepping outside of perceived convention, but many lawyers/judges who don't even agree with the convention will perceive unconventional approaches as less serious than conventional approaches.
I, too, would really appreciate empirical research, but couldn't do it myself -- know any good legal writing professors? ;-)