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.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
