The Eleventh Circuit's style guide

Recently I was admitted to the Bar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In yesterday's mail, my certificate of admission arrived — accompanied by a copy of The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White. Perhaps this is the court's way of suggesting that lawyers follow Strunk's and White's rules when writing briefs, motions, and other papers.

Also included in the package from the court was a cover letter encouraging me to "refer to the most recent revisions of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Eleventh Circuit Rules, and Internal Operating Procedures," all of which are available on the court's web site. This reminder calls to mind an important pointer for any lawyer practicing before any U.S. appellate court: Each court's web site includes links to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the court's local rules. Most of them also include guides and checklists for writing briefs. No matter how many briefs you've written, it's never a bad idea to review those on-line resources before writing your next one. Remember that the rules may have changed since your last brief, and that you can always find the most current versions of the rules and guides on the court's web site.

(Originally posted on the (new) legal writer.)

Comments

[S. COTUS]

When will it end? The fact that they The Elements of Style indicates that judges are sitting around criticizing peoples’ writings rather than addressing legal arguments. All lawyers snark upon each others’ work. This is a fact of life. There is not a lawyer alive in the country that thinks highly of the written work of all of the lawyers in his area of practice. The Eleventh Circuit is simply articulating its general snarkiness in the form of a gift.

But, what can you expect from a court that thinks that 1) refers to forced masturbation as “sexual acts of self-gratification;” and 2) writes “...that a female prison guard’s solicitation of a male prisoner’s manual masturbation, even under the threat of reprisal, does not present
more than de minimis injury.”