View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Title: Don't Print! Legal Writing & Reading in The
Digital Age
Date: March 17, 2016
Time: 11:00 AM to 12:15 PM
Moderator
Irene Oria
Special Counsel
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
Miami, FL
Panelists
Cindy Duque Bonilla
Counsel
Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC
Orlando, FL
Eric Magnuson
Partner, Robins Kaplan LLP
Former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court
St. Paul, MN
Raoul G. Cantero
Partner, White & Case LLP
Former Justice, Florida Supreme Court
Miami, FL
Edward J. Loya, Jr.
Counsel
Venable LLP
Los Angeles, CA
Don't Print! Legal Writing & Reading in The Digital Age
March 16-19, 2016 Caesars Palace Hotel & Casino
Las Vegas, NV
Moderator: Irene Oria, Esq. – Special Counsel, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP (Miami, FL)
Panelists:
Eric J. Magnuson, Esq. – Partner, Robins Kaplan LLP; Former Chief Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court (Minneapolis, MN) Raoul G. Cantero, III, Esq. – Partner, White & Case LLP; Former Justice, Florida Supreme Court (Miami, FL)
Cindy Duque Bonilla, Esq. – Partner of Counsel, Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial LLC (Orlando, FL) Edward J. Loya, Esq. – Counsel, Venable LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
2016 Corporate Counsel Conference
WHY TECHNOLOGY?
Primary Speaker:
Eric J. Magnuson, Esq. Partner, Robins Kaplan LLP
Former Chief Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court Minneapolis, MN
HOW COURTS ARE DEALING WITH TECHNOLOGY, GENERALLY
Primary Speaker:
Eric J. Magnuson, Esq. Partner, Robins Kaplan LLP
Former Chief Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court Minneapolis, MN
Minnesota’s eCourtMN initiative
Annual Report
E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: An Appraisal
National Conference of Appellate Court Clerks
ABA Council of Appellate Lawyers E-Briefs Project
ABA Council of Appellate Lawyers - Rules Committee Overview
25 Years Later, PACER, Electronic
Filing Continue to Change Courts
Access to Court Opinions Expands
Single login across
all courts where
lawyer is registered
Customize screens
Display specific
information
Emphasize remote
access
• For Lawyers
• For Judges
EXAMPLE: FLORIDA COURT TECHNICAL ADVANCES
Primary Speakers:
RAOUL G. CANTERO, ESQ.
Former Justice, Florida Supreme Court
Partner, White & Case LLP – Miami, FL
IRENE ORIA, ESQ.
Special Counsel, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP – Miami, FL
Court Technology in Florida
• Through the integration of state-of-the-art technologies, Florida’s court system is recognized as one of the leaders in the country.
• Florida’s courts have made great advances in the use of technology to improve and enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and timeliness of those processes which are critical to the management of information technologies. Opportunities created by emerging technologies have provided the impetus for the judiciary to meet the multitude of challenges faced by our court system with a view towards improving the administration of justice and enhancing public access and service.
• Statewide Electronic Filing Court Records Portal (ePortal) & eRecord
• Online Docketing & Online Calendaring – Trial & Appellate Courts
• Broadcasts, Webcasts & Oral Argument Archives
• Florida Appellate Courts Technology Solutions (eFACTS) Project, Judicial Inquiry System & Court Application Processing System (CAPS)
• Due Process Capabilities, Official Court Blogs & Other Technical Advances
• How Florida Appellate Judges Read
Current Projects
eFiling and eService through ePortal
• The Florida State Courts System had been working on automating the process of filing court documents for many years. In 2008, the Legislature mandated a transition to the e-filing of court records. On June 21, 2012, the Supreme Court issued opinions approving recommendations to require e-filing by attorneys and e-service, through a phased in implementation.
• Service by e-mail is mandatory as of September 1, 2012 for trial courts in civil, probate, small claims & family cases and also all appellate cases – and as of October 1, 2013 in criminal, traffic and juvenile matters.
• As of October 1, 2013, e-filing is mandatory in all Florida trial courts. The eFiling portal website provides eFiling and eRecording capability to users (including non-attorneys) with a single statewide login.
• Mandatory statewide electronic record on appeal is effective October 1, 2015; only PDF files of the trial record and trial transcript are transmitted to appellate court.
• With electronic filing now the norm in
Florida courts, the implementation of mandatory electronic records on appeal is one of necessary steps in the ongoing efforts to provide the public with electronic access to non-confidential court records.
eRecord
• Interactive online case dockets allow you to search for cases by case name, case number and other criteria.
• In some courts/counties, interactive online calendars allow you to schedule hearings online.
Online Dockets and Online Calendaring in Trial & Appellate Courts
• The Florida Supreme Court has broadcast and webcast all of its oral arguments since 1997 through a partnership with Florida State University’s Broadcast Center. Web casting is also available in some other appellate courts such as the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
• Florida Supreme Court oral argument archives are available online by date of oral argument.
Broadcasts, Webcasts & Oral Argument Archives
• The Florida Supreme Court has e-voting – where justices vote on circulating opinions online. All justices receive notice of the vote and can see how many justices have voted on circulating opinions.
Florida Supreme Court “E-Voting”
The Florida Supreme Court is participating in the pilot FACTS Project to accommodate electronic documents and replace the existing appellate courts case management systems. eFACTS will offer new and enhanced user efficiencies, including: electronic document management, electronic workflows, electronic voting, remote access via a secured web application, tracking of administrative matters, assignment and working document tracking, calendaring, on-line docket and secured access to case information. eFACTS will also accommodate electronic filing via the ePortal.
Florida Appellate Courts Technology Solutions (eFACTS) Project
• The Judicial Inquiry System (JIS) provides statewide information to courts on criminal cases. This technology initiative offers the Judiciary and other criminal justice entities access to a streamlined dashboard in which a user may query multiple data sources through a single point of entry.
• There is a need for equivalent information/similar capabilities in civil
and family cases which will be provided in the future through the Integrated Trial Court Adjudicatory System (ITCAS) project.
Judicial Inquiry System
• This is a computer application /fully-automated trial court case management system designed for in-court and in-chambers use which facilitates work on cases from any location and across many devices and data sources. It provides judges with rapid and reliable access to case information; provides access to and use of case files and other data in managing cases, scheduling and conducting hearings, adjudicating disputes, and recording and reporting judicial activity; and allows judges to prepare, electronically sign, file, and serve orders. While project is already underway, the need is to complete a statewide rollout across all counties and circuits, establish data and interface standards for improved interoperability, and improve data access from clerks and other court stakeholders.
Court Application Processing System (CAPS)
• Some courts have implemented due process capabilities (remote interpreters, digital audio/video recording, to include the expansion of digital court reporting equipment in necessary courtrooms and hearing rooms not already outfitted with the technology) over the last several years. The need is to complete the rollouts statewide and provide life cycle funding for maintenance and replacement.
Due Process Capabilities
• Some courts have created official court blogs on the internet that are maintained by the clerk of court’s office. These blogs provide summaries of recent court opinions, lists of cases granted review, schedules and notices of high-profile cases, and upcoming dockets.
Official Court Blogs
•Use of mobile technology such as iPad
•Use of Hyperlinks
Hyperlinked Tables of Contents
Hyperlinks to Legal Authority and the Record
•Use of Bookmarks in Briefs and Appendices
• In some courts, videoconferencing of oral argument to reduce travel time and costs is permitted (Florida First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee was the first court to allow videoconferencing)
Other Technical Advances
• In a survey conducted in June 2014, Florida’s 68 appellate court judges (61 district court of appeal judges and seven supreme court justices) were asked to indicate the percentage of briefs and other case-related documents they read in paper and electronic media. Thirty-five judges (approximately 52 percent of those surveyed) responded. All but three of the 35 judges indicated that they read at least 50 percent of briefs on a computer or tablet screen. (Of the three who do not read at least 50 percent of briefs electronically, one reads all briefs in paper format; one reads 25 percent of briefs electronically; and the other reads 40 percent of briefs electronically.) All but two of the 35 judges read at least 50 percent of appendices and record documents on a screen.
How Florida Appellate Judges Read
EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY IN A TECHNOLOGICAL WORLD
Primary Speakers:
Cindy Duque Bonilla, Esq. Partner of Counsel
Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial LLC Orlando, FL
Edward J. Loya, Esq. Counsel, Venable LLP
Los Angeles, CA
Not superficial; this is advocacy
Of course. Substance is essential.
. . . but presentation matters.
Dressing for Court
Speaking to Courts
SCREEN READING
Primary Speaker:
Edward J. Loya, Esq. Counsel, Venable LLP
Los Angeles, CA
Many appellate judges read on iPads.
Court issuing iPads
“The iPad was a game
changer for me.”
“With it, I can work from
anywhere as long as I
have wifi access.”
Richard C. Wesley Second Circuit Court of Appeals
~2011: Clerks taught
how to use iPad
“Now I use it all the
time!”
“And now, so do many of
my fellow judges . . . .”
Judicial Retreat:
“Judge Lynch and I did a
demonstration”
• mark up PDFs
• memos with hyperlinked
cases
Every Second Circuit order:
– Before retreat = all paper
– After retreat = all PDFs
“[J]udges were . . .
comfortable with PDFs.”
“[W]e immediately
reduced the flow of
paper for a lot of the
court’s motion practice.”
Screen Readers: The Science
• Red areas read by most readers • Yellow areas read by many readers
• Blue areas read by few readers • Grey areas read by none
The F-Pattern
• Look for headings and summaries of content
• Read the first paragraph more thoroughly than the rest of the text
• Read the first sentence of a paragraph, but skim the rest of the paragraph
• Look for structural cures down the left side of the page
Screen Readers
More exhausting
Screen Readers
Have less attention and want information quickly
Screen Readers
Do not want to work hard to get information
Visible Structure
• Frequent headings • Outlines • Topic sentences • Lists • Bullets
SCREEN WRITING
Primary Speaker:
Cindy Duque Bonilla, Esq. Partner of Counsel
Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial LLC Orlando, FL
Writing for Courts
Writing for Paper
Writing for Screens
“I can’t read on screens!”
There’s a reason
. . . that’s less true today.
Paper = 300-600 ppi (points per inch)
CRT = 60 ppi
LCD = 110 ppi
Over Time: Better PPI
Better Fonts
Remember Courier?
Condensed = more text per page
Times New Roman (1932)
=
Default in 1992
=
Default in 2007
But don’t most courts require Times New Roman?
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a) (5) Typeface. . . .
a. A proportionally spaced face must include serifs, but sans-serif type may be used in headings and captions.
7th Cir. Typography Studies have shown that long passages of serif type are easier to read and comprehend than long passages of sans-serif type. The rule accordingly limits the principal sections of submissions to serif type, although sans-serif type may be used in headings and captions.
Rules require serifs
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)
(5) Typeface. . .
a. A proportionally spaced face must include serifs, but sans-serif type may be used in headings and captions.
Not choosing (keeping the default) is a choice.
Font Choice
Font Options - Serif Font Options – Serif
[this is 14 pt, text is 12 pt, title and ISSUE: fonts are bold]
Baskerville Old Face (Magnuson)
ISSUE: fonts (Sample italics and bold italics)
Century (U.S. S. Ct., SG)
ISSUE: fonts (Sample italics and bold italics)
Book Antiqua (above title) ISSUE: fonts (Sample italics and bold italics)
Bookman Old Style (Murray)
ISSUE: fonts (Sample italics and bold italics)
Century Schoolbook (Schneider)
ISSUE: fonts (Sample italics and bold italics)
Cambria (Microsoft ClearType) ISSUE: fonts (Sample italics and bold italics)
Constantia (Microsoft ClearType) ISSUE: fonts (Sample italics and bold italics)
Times New Roman (Traditional)
ISSUE: fonts (Sample italics and bold italics)
Arial (above sub title)
ISSUE: fonts (Sample italics and bold italics)
Calibri (Microsoft ClearType) ISSUE: fonts (Sample italics and bold italics)
Candara (Microsoft ClearType) ISSUE: fonts (Sample italics and bold italics)
Paper = Serif
(e.g., Book Antiqua)
Screens = Sans Serif
(e.g., Arial)
Conventional Wisdom
But we don’t know
how judges will read
briefs — paper or
screens.
What can we do?
There’s a font [set] and
technology for that.
Forbes Article Dec. 2013
“We believed that more and
more documents would
never be printed but would
solely be consumed on a
digital device.” Joe Friend
Microsoft
Forbes Article Dec. 2013
“To support digital
consumption, the new fonts
were created to improve
screen readability. They
[Microsoft employees] do
this via a technology called
ClearType.”
Joe Friend
Microsoft
No ClearType ClearType
LCDs - ClearType
Lucas de Groot
Serif Sans Serif
Fonts Designed for ClearType
Lucas de Groot
ClearType Fonts?
Serif Sans Serif
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) A proportionally spaced face must include serifs
Hear, All Ye People; Hearken, O Earth!
Among a sampling of 40,000
readers, Baskerville, a 250-year-
old serif , statistically more likely
to influence the minds of readers
than Computer Modern, Georgia, Helvetica, Comic Sans or Trebuchet. John Baskerville
Typography: Don’t take our word for it.
Ask Professionals
Times New Roman vs. better fonts
Spacing
Supreme Court R. 33: “every document . . . double spaced”
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(4): “text must be double-spaced”
Minn. L. R. 7.1(f): “typewritten and double-spaced”
C.D. Cal. L.R. 11-3.2: “The lines on each page shall be double-spaced”
“Double spaced”
Word “double space” = 2.3x
12 pt font = 30 pt spacing
True “double space” = 2.0x
12 pt font = 24 pt spacing
2x 12 pt = 24 pt
2x 12 pt ≠ 30 pt
“Double Space”
30pt Spacing True double space
“Double space” = 2.0x
12 pt font = 24 pt spacing
“Double space” = 2.33x
12 pt font = 30 pt spacing
What do courts mean?
More (readable) lines per page are better.
Tablets are smaller.
“For most text, the optimal line spacing is between 120% and 145% of the point size.”
14pt font = 17-20pt spacing
Line Spacing: 1.2x to 1.45x
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX: VISUAL IMPACT OF BRIEFS
Primary Speaker:
Eric J. Magnuson, Esq. Partner, Robins Kaplan LLP
Former Chief Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court Minneapolis, MN
Recommended