Word Counts for Appellate Briefs: Less Is More
Word counts are a way of life in modern appellate practice. The halcyon days of 70-page "briefs" are gone—never to return, see Commonwealth v. Spuck, 86 A.3d 870, 872 (Pa. Super. 2014), (discussing the demise of the 70-page rule); Commonwealth v. Stoppie, 486 A.2d 994, 996 (Pa. Super. 1984), (quoting former Pa. R.A.P. 2135(1)). Page limits invited abuse, such as "substantive arguments and sub-arguments ... set forth in footnotes [and] other compressed texts, such as block quotes or single-spaced bullet points," as in Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 349 (Pa. 2011).
June 01, 2017 at 05:07 PM
6 minute read
Word counts are a way of life in modern appellate practice. The halcyon days of 70-page “briefs” are gone—never to return, see Commonwealth v. Spuck, 86 A.3d 870, 872 (Pa. Super. 2014), (discussing the demise of the 70-page rule); Commonwealth v. Stoppie, 486 A.2d 994, 996 (Pa. Super. 1984), (quoting former Pa. R.A.P. 2135(1)). Page limits invited abuse, such as “substantive arguments and sub-arguments … set forth in footnotes [and] other compressed texts, such as block quotes or single-spaced bullet points,” as in Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 349 (Pa. 2011). Ultimately, word counts fell prey to technological work-arounds, such as “make it fit” programs, that while violating font rules, did so with such finesse and precision that they were difficult (if not impossible) to catch.
Word counts, while not perfect, are far less amenable to manipulation than length limits based on size. Even the “tricks” that are available: removing spaces between abbreviations (compare “F. Supp. 2d” with “F.Supp.2d”), and hyphenation (compare “state-of-the-art defense” with “state of the art defense”), can reduce word counts in long briefs by no more than a hundred words or so. Thus, as a practical matter, word counts are a more effective way of curbing lawyerly verbosity.
Word counts for standard appellate briefs are specified in Pa. R.A.P. 2135(a)(1) (14,000 words for each side's principal brief and 7,000 words for reply briefs). Rule 2135(a)(2) provides that, in cross-appeals, the parties' principal briefs may run to 16,500 words. For practitioners with criminal appeals, principal briefs in capital cases may not exceed 17,500 words nor reply briefs 8500 words. Rule 2135(a)(3). Post-conviction relief briefs in capital cases are the longest appellate briefs—22,500 words for principal briefs and 11,250 for reply briefs. Rule 2135(a)(4). With respect to all briefs, Rule 2135(b) provides:
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 AllTruck Collision Defendants Claim Verdict Slip Issues Spurred Jury's $29M Award
3 minute read$8M Med Mal Verdict Against Abington Hospital Fends Off Pa. Appeals Court Challenge
3 minute readPa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Glynn County Judge Rejects Ex-DA's Motion to Halt Her Misconduct Trial in Ahmaud Arbery Investigation
- 2Pa 100: Largest Law Firms
- 3Whistleblowers Are Here To Stay: Counseling Corporate Clients on Whistleblower Programs
- 4Intentionally Caused Motor Vehicle Accidents In the Video Spotlight
- 5Scrap the State's Taxpayer Funding of Elections
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