'Draft an Order' Doesn't Mean 'Do a Literary Victory Lap'
Especially as courts conduct more remote hearings, take notes and ask questions so your draft reflects the judge's intentions.
March 27, 2020 at 10:23 AM
5 minute read
Due to court closures, some courts may proceed in a remote format. You may see more Skype-conducted or telephonic hearings. Imagine that after a lengthy telephonic hearing, the judge in your case speaks the words that confirm your victory, "Counsel, would you please draft the order of the court?" You think to yourself that this would be a good opportunity to do a literary victory lap over your vanquished opposing counsel. However, I would caution you that this opportunity is fraught with perils. This article is a quick guide to some of the better practices used when drafting the proposed order when requested by a judge.
Take Copious Notes About the Facts of Your Case. Taking notes while argument happens and while the judge lays out her reasoning for reaching a conclusion will save you time as you develop the findings in the order. It also will leave out error that can come when relying on memory alone.
Before You Conclude the Hearing, Ask Questions. After the judge asks you to draft the order for the court, ask questions of the judge so that your proposed order contains precisely what is granted and denied. Most judges will not be offended if you ask questions, as they fully expect the written order to reflect their oral rulings. Also inquire as to when your draft will be expected, as this will provide you with a known time limit for your composition and submission to the court.
Remember, the Judge Keeps Notes on What Is Granted and Denied. Just about every judge keeps notes regarding what is and is not granted in the cases argued before them. They will review your proposed order alongside their notes. This is an opportunity to build (or lose) credibility with the judge.
If It Was Not Granted Orally, You Don't Get to Include It. Stay as close as you can to your notes and ensure that your proposed order reflects only those issues that the judge, in fact, ruled on and that might have been expressly reserved by the judge. Just because a particular topic was not mentioned does not mean that you get to add it as part of the ruling. For example: The judge is silent as to the issue of attorney fees in the hearing, and a generous award for attorney fees appears in your proposed order; be aware that it will be removed, and you will have damaged your credibility with that judge.
Grammar Matters. Remember, judges tend to be sticklers for proper grammar.
Be Careful of Ex Parte Communications. When you conclude your draft and you are prepared to submit it to the judge's office, be certain to provide a copy to opposing counsel. They may have an objection. Remember, opposing counsel also was taking notes during the hearing.
Be Mindful of Your Audience(s). When you are drafting your order, bear in mind your audiences: First, the judge who will sign the order; second, the opposing counsel that may object to, or even appeal, your draft; and, on appeal, the higher courts. If you write an order that you do not think will stand up to appeal, then I strongly suggest you go back to the drawing board. Remember, it will be your job to defend that order before a higher court. Further, proposed orders that substantially fail to conform to meeting the standard of what will stand up on appeal, (an order that contains findings of facts where necessary or required, applicable conclusions of law, and a legal analysis in accordance with the judge's ruling) create unnecessary delay in being filed.
Remember Uniform Superior Court Rule 36.4. Do not forget to put your name and contact information on your proposed order. It helps when there is a question about the order.
When Submitting Your Final Product to the Court, Do It in a Format That Can Be Edited.
When submitting your proposed order, use a format that can be edited, such as a Microsoft Word document. The reason being, you might have included findings that in your draft you thought were important but not what the judge found compelling when granting the motion. In addition, there may be grammar issues or better case law to support a legal proposition.
A very simple outline for an order includes the following sections:
- An introduction,
- Findings of fact and/or procedural posture,
- Legal standards applicable to your case,
- An analysis applying the law to the facts, and
- A conclusion.
These tips are not meant to be a complete list of the makings of a good proposed order, but they are things to keep in mind while drafting. The judge is trusting you to draft an order that captures the ruling properly supported by facts and applicable law. Yes, you may have won your motion for your client, but, if you are not careful, you can damage your credibility with a judge for your next client. Well-crafted proposed orders signal to the judge that you can be trusted with such a task.
Carlos Vilela graduated from Atlanta's John Marshall Law School in 2012. He serves as staff attorney to Judge Jane P. Manning of Cobb County State Court.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWho Got the Work: 16 Lawyers Appointed to BioLab Class Action Litigation
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250