Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Restyled Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Go Into Effect Today

Download associated file: Restyled Fed R Civ P.pdf 

Restyling the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is like wrapping drapes around nude statutes or painting abs on the Venus de Milo. Nothing substantive changes but someone prefers the look. The new look — the text of the restyled Rules effective December 1, 2007 — is attached.

It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of the transaction costs that this restyling will cost clients. Every single rule has been rewritten, and innumerable internal numbering changes have been made. Henceforth, much, if not most, research be done twice — once using the old numbering, once using the new, or once using the new words and once using the old. Simply revising my Sanctions book to take into account merely the numbering and language changes took more than $25,000 worth of billable time. At least no client had to bear that. All clients will bear scores of millions in the future, in bills for essential but purely duplicative research from lawyers around the country. Why do many litigants flee federal court?

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

Archives