Legal briefs typically act as the main vehicle for litigants to put across their point in court, conveying their case to the judge. However, the necessity of achieving absolute perfection in the creation of these briefs has come into question. It has been suggested that lawyers might undertake a cost-benefit analysis and allocate less time to proofreading and searching for errors in their briefs, focusing instead on the substance of their argument.
Typically, a lawyer’s processes involve conducting research and forming the core arguments of the brief as swiftly as possible, revisiting it for an extensive proofreading multiple times to ensure no typos or other errors that might undermine its professional appearance. Often, last-minute reviews right before filing also reveal overlooked errors, leading to some additional stress in preparing legal documents for court.
A recurring piece of advice given by judges and law clerks suggests that courts usually look over legal briefs once or twice, and may not necessarily delve into scrupulous detail. So, even if an error slips through, it is unlikely to drive the court’s decision. Lawyers are reminded of the old adage, indicating that the law doesn’t demand perfection, emphasising that as long as a brief’s content is well-structured and well-argued, minor typos should not outweigh its substance.
Lawyers should understand that a small number of errors might be tolerable. This is demonstrated by the fact that even judicial opinions sometimes carry typographical errors. Even in high-profile situations where a brief is likely to receive extensive scrutiny, minor typos can be difficult to avoid, despite the efforts of a legal team. However, the material impact of such errors on the court’s decision is likely to be minimal.
While endorsing attention to detail, it is noted that the pursuit of perfection in proofreading legal briefs should be reasonable. Lawyers should aim for as few errors as possible but should not overburden themselves, as absolute perfection in legal briefs or court opinions is rare.
For more insights on this topic, refer to this article by Jordan Rothman, a partner of The Rothman Law Firm and the founder of Student Debt Diaries.