A 59,000-Word Brief is Still An Oxymoron, Even If Your Lawyer is Famous and Your Case is Really, Really Important

The Wall Street Journal's law blog relates "The Curious Case Of Skilling's Really Long Appellate Brief." Apparently, O'Melveny & Myers filed a 239-page appellate brief for Jeffery Skilling. This firm is at the top of the tree in Los Angeles. It's attorneys are not only bright, but for the most part, decent and ethical. They are also damn good.

Nevertheless, a 59,000 word brief (the normal limit is 14,000) is absurd. I would try to tell you how absurd, but Mr. Lawyer from Lowering the bar does it with more élan than I could manage. I quote briefly from his post, but you might pop over and read the whole thing yourself:

The last brief I saw that was long enough to mock was a 100+ page draft of a brief that featured a 17-page introduction (itself longer than most briefs), with eleven separate main arguments, the last of which was the Dormant Commerce Clause. (Tip: If your argument even mentions the Dormant Commerce Clause, you probably need a new argument.) O'Melveny's brief uses 239 pages to cover just five main points. ... Each and every page, of course, is deeply treasured by its author(s), who could no more delete one of these pages than you would push one of your own children in front of a bus to buy yourself a few extra seconds to dodge out of the way.

If a lawyer thinks about the case load of federal appellate judges; if a lawyer contemplates the volume of reading material these judges wade through daily; he or she may ask, "Do I really want my client's points lost in a 239 page black hole?"