Font and Circumstance

In a recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Frank Easterbrook delivered a compelling discussion on the significance of typeface and document formatting in legal briefs. This legal opinion, arising from the case AsymaDesign, LLC v. CBL & Associates Management, Inc., highlighted the role that good typography plays in ensuring readability and effective communication in legal documents.

Judge Easterbrook's remarks underscore the necessity for legal professionals to select appropriate typefaces, particularly those suited for long-form texts such as legal briefs and books. He pointed out that the Seventh Circuit’s Practitioner’s Handbook for Appeals provides detailed guidance on typographic choices, emphasizing fonts designed for readability and sustained reading.

Why Typeface Matters in Legal Documents

Legal documents, by their nature, require precision and clarity. Judges, as long-term consumers of these texts, rely on well-formatted and legible documents to efficiently process and understand complex legal arguments. Poor typographic choices can impede this process, causing unnecessary strain and reducing comprehension.

In his opinion, Judge Easterbrook noted the following:

1. Legibility and Readability: Legal texts are extensive and dense. Typefaces with a larger "x-height" (the height of the lowercase letters relative to uppercase letters) enhance readability. Fonts like Century, Book Antiqua, and Palatino Linotype, which are commonly used in books, are recommended for legal documents because they are designed for prolonged reading.
2. Appropriate Typeface Selection: The opinion criticized the use of Bernhard Modern in AsymaDesign's brief, describing it as a display face more suited for titles and posters rather than long passages of text. This typeface’s low x-height and decorative style make it hard to read in extended formats, thus hindering the effective communication of legal arguments.
3. Professional Standards: The Seventh Circuit's Handbook, along with resources like Matthew Butterick’s Typography for Lawyers, offers a list of recommended typefaces that are optimal for legal work. These resources aim to enhance the presentation of legal documents, making them easier to read and more persuasive.

Times Change

While discussing typeface selection, Judge Easterbrook does not mention the use of Times New Roman, a font often defaulted to in legal documents. Despite its widespread use, Times New Roman is not included in the recommended list of typefaces in the Seventh Circuit's Handbook. Courts generally have a preference for fonts that offer better readability and visual appeal over the more commonly used but less optimal choices. Times New Roman was designed for use in newspapers, due to the narrow columns that make up that medium.

In modern times, at least in Oklahoma courts, the vast majority of filings are submitted in 12-point Times New Roman, with 1" margins on all sides (a few courts, including the OK Supreme Court, require 1.25" left margins). This makes for long line lengths with narrow lettering, making it more difficult to read and remember. As attorneys, part of our job is to make sure the Judge is able to easily read and comprehend our arguments and to almost incept our arguments into their head. The use of Times New Roman works directly against that purpose. Instead, try using any of the typefaces suggested by Judge Easterbrook in this case, or the options at Typography for Lawyers.

Conclusion

Judge Easterbrook’s discussion in this opinion serves as a reminder for legal professionals about the importance of typography. By choosing typefaces that promote ease of reading and understanding, lawyers can significantly enhance the effectiveness of their written advocacy. As the legal community continues to produce extensive written materials, rethinking our use of typographic standards will ensure that arguments are presented in the clearest, most persuasive (and most memorable!) way possible.