Many practicing lawyers know all too well that courts are often overburdened with busy dockets and insufficient resources to handle all of the tasks associated with judicial matters. This can lead to mistakes since courts often need to decide upon numerous motions, applications, and other types of requests at a single time, and court administrators often hold judges to difficult standards about resolving matters in a timely fashion. In order to streamline the judicial process and save resources, more courts should require litigants to submit proposed orders when they file motions.
Judges make all kinds of mistakes when it comes to deciding motions. Sometimes, judges fail to grant the precise relief requested in a motion, presumably since they did not closely read the papers and did not include language necessary to resolve a given issue. At other times, judges might draft an order that contains ambiguities which require follow-up action by litigants and court staff. In other recent examples, judges might use artificial intelligence to draft opinions that might contain fabricated authorities. These types of errors may be reduced if judges commonly receive proposed orders from litigants.
One of the jurisdictions in which I practice requires litigants to file a proposed order whenever they file a motion. The proposed order must be uploaded in a Word format so that judges can make edits to the document before it is signed and entered. When a litigant uploads a proposed order, it includes the exact relief that is requested and any follow-up deadlines or other ancillary matters that are attendant to the relief a litigant is seeking. In addition, a proposed order includes all of the rote language that needs to be included in a given order.
In most instances, when a litigant wins a motion, the court does not act as a “rubber stamp” since judges routinely make changes to proposed orders before entering them. Courts often make changes to the orders to reflect some of the reasoning that was presented by the party opposing the motion or to limit the extent of the relief sought by a party in a proposed order. In some instances, the court includes some of its own reasoning within the language of the order provided by the movant.
Obviously, proposed orders are more useful for some types of cases rather than others. For instance, a proposed order might be less useful when deciding a dispositive motion since the court often needs to provide its reasoning when coming to a position, and the outcome might be more nuanced than the resolution contained in a proposed order. Moreover, sometimes a court wishes to decide a matter in a nonbinary manner that does not in any way resemble the outcome envisaged by a proposed matter.
However, the vast majority of motions are routine and usually have an expected outcome. For instance, motions to amend a pleading are often granted, so it might make sense for a court to simply sign a proposed order that includes deadlines associated with the proposed amendment. Moreover, motions to compel discovery are also frequently granted and can be decided by a simple order that includes a discovery schedule. In such instances, courts could save considerable resources by having parties upload proposed orders that include the expected language litigants seek.
Of course, courts often need to change proposed orders, and view them skeptically since a party will always try to include language that is most favorable to that party’s position in a case. However, in many instances, proposed orders can be helpful to courts and can potentially save courts judicial resources that can be spent on other tasks.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.
The post More Courts Should Ask Litigants To Provide Proposed Orders appeared first on Above the Law.
Many practicing lawyers know all too well that courts are often overburdened with busy dockets and insufficient resources to handle all of the tasks associated with judicial matters. This can lead to mistakes since courts often need to decide upon numerous motions, applications, and other types of requests at a single time, and court administrators often hold judges to difficult standards about resolving matters in a timely fashion. In order to streamline the judicial process and save resources, more courts should require litigants to submit proposed orders when they file motions.
Judges make all kinds of mistakes when it comes to deciding motions. Sometimes, judges fail to grant the precise relief requested in a motion, presumably since they did not closely read the papers and did not include language necessary to resolve a given issue. At other times, judges might draft an order that contains ambiguities which require follow-up action by litigants and court staff. In other recent examples, judges might use artificial intelligence to draft opinions that might contain fabricated authorities. These types of errors may be reduced if judges commonly receive proposed orders from litigants.
One of the jurisdictions in which I practice requires litigants to file a proposed order whenever they file a motion. The proposed order must be uploaded in a Word format so that judges can make edits to the document before it is signed and entered. When a litigant uploads a proposed order, it includes the exact relief that is requested and any follow-up deadlines or other ancillary matters that are attendant to the relief a litigant is seeking. In addition, a proposed order includes all of the rote language that needs to be included in a given order.
In most instances, when a litigant wins a motion, the court does not act as a “rubber stamp” since judges routinely make changes to proposed orders before entering them. Courts often make changes to the orders to reflect some of the reasoning that was presented by the party opposing the motion or to limit the extent of the relief sought by a party in a proposed order. In some instances, the court includes some of its own reasoning within the language of the order provided by the movant.
Obviously, proposed orders are more useful for some types of cases rather than others. For instance, a proposed order might be less useful when deciding a dispositive motion since the court often needs to provide its reasoning when coming to a position, and the outcome might be more nuanced than the resolution contained in a proposed order. Moreover, sometimes a court wishes to decide a matter in a nonbinary manner that does not in any way resemble the outcome envisaged by a proposed matter.
However, the vast majority of motions are routine and usually have an expected outcome. For instance, motions to amend a pleading are often granted, so it might make sense for a court to simply sign a proposed order that includes deadlines associated with the proposed amendment. Moreover, motions to compel discovery are also frequently granted and can be decided by a simple order that includes a discovery schedule. In such instances, courts could save considerable resources by having parties upload proposed orders that include the expected language litigants seek.
Of course, courts often need to change proposed orders, and view them skeptically since a party will always try to include language that is most favorable to that party’s position in a case. However, in many instances, proposed orders can be helpful to courts and can potentially save courts judicial resources that can be spent on other tasks.
Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.
