Atenção: A questão refere-se ao texto abaixo.

Judges Push Brevity in Briefs, and Get a Torrent of Arguments

By ELIZABETH OLSON

OCT. 3, 2016

The Constitution of the United States clocks in at 4,543 words. Yet a number of lawyers contend that 14,000 words are barely enough to lay out their legal arguments.

That’s the maximum word count for briefs filed in federal appellate courts. For years, judges have complained that too many briefs are repetitive and full of outmoded legal jargon, and that they take up too much of their time.

A recent proposal to bring the limit down by 1,500 words unleashed an outcry among lawyers.

Lawyers in criminal, environmental and securities law insisted that briefs’ lengths should not be shortened because legal issues and statutes are more complex than ever

As a result, the new word limit − which takes effect on Dec. 1 − will be 13,500 words, a reduction of only 500 words. And appellate judges will have the freedom to opt out of the limits.

The new limit may not provide much relief for judges deluged with verbose briefs.

While workloads vary, according to federal court data, the average federal appeals court judge, for example, might need to read filings for around 1,200 cases annually.

That amount of reading − especially bad reading − can thin the patience of even the most diligent judge.

Briefs “are too long to be persuasive,” said Laurence H. Silberman, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

In arguing against a reduction of words, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers urged singling out “bad briefs” rather than only lengthy ones. It advised courts to “post on their court websites short videos outlining how to write a decent brief.”

Robert N. Markle, a federal appellate lawyer, has argued − in his own personal view, not the government’s − that the limit should be reduced to 10,000 words. In a typical case, he said, “nothing justifies even approaching, much less reaching or exceeding 14,000 words.”

Still, he acknowledged that the cut of 500 words “was at least a start.”

(Adapted from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/business/dealbook/judges-push-brevity-in-briefs-and-get-a-torrent-of-arguments. html?_r=0)

Atenção: A questão refere-se ao texto abaixo.

Judges Push Brevity in Briefs, and Get a Torrent of Arguments

By ELIZABETH OLSON

OCT. 3, 2016

The Constitution of the United States clocks in at 4,543 words. Yet a number of lawyers contend that 14,000 words are barely enough to lay out their legal arguments.

That’s the maximum word count for briefs filed in federal appellate courts. For years, judges have complained that too many briefs are repetitive and full of outmoded legal jargon, and that they take up too much of their time.

A recent proposal to bring the limit down by 1,500 words unleashed an outcry among lawyers.

Lawyers in criminal, environmental and securities law insisted that briefs’ lengths should not be shortened because legal issues and statutes are more complex than ever

As a result, the new word limit − which takes effect on Dec. 1 − will be 13,500 words, a reduction of only 500 words. And appellate judges will have the freedom to opt out of the limits.

The new limit may not provide much relief for judges deluged with verbose briefs.

While workloads vary, according to federal court data, the average federal appeals court judge, for example, might need to read filings for around 1,200 cases annually.

That amount of reading − especially bad reading − can thin the patience of even the most diligent judge.

Briefs “are too long to be persuasive,” said Laurence H. Silberman, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

In arguing against a reduction of words, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers urged singling out “bad briefs” rather than only lengthy ones. It advised courts to “post on their court websites short videos outlining how to write a decent brief.”

Robert N. Markle, a federal appellate lawyer, has argued − in his own personal view, not the government’s − that the limit should be reduced to 10,000 words. In a typical case, he said, “nothing justifies even approaching, much less reaching or exceeding 14,000 words.”

Still, he acknowledged that the cut of 500 words “was at least a start.”

(Adapted from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/business/dealbook/judges-push-brevity-in-briefs-and-get-a-torrent-of-arguments. html?_r=0)

Atenção: A questão refere-se ao texto abaixo.

Judges Push Brevity in Briefs, and Get a Torrent of Arguments

By ELIZABETH OLSON

OCT. 3, 2016

The Constitution of the United States clocks in at 4,543 words. Yet a number of lawyers contend that 14,000 words are barely enough to lay out their legal arguments.

That’s the maximum word count for briefs filed in federal appellate courts. For years, judges have complained that too many briefs are repetitive and full of outmoded legal jargon, and that they take up too much of their time.

A recent proposal to bring the limit down by 1,500 words unleashed an outcry among lawyers.

Lawyers in criminal, environmental and securities law insisted that briefs’ lengths should not be shortened because legal issues and statutes are more complex than ever

As a result, the new word limit − which takes effect on Dec. 1 − will be 13,500 words, a reduction of only 500 words. And appellate judges will have the freedom to opt out of the limits.

The new limit may not provide much relief for judges deluged with verbose briefs.

While workloads vary, according to federal court data, the average federal appeals court judge, for example, might need to read filings for around 1,200 cases annually.

That amount of reading − especially bad reading − can thin the patience of even the most diligent judge.

Briefs “are too long to be persuasive,” said Laurence H. Silberman, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

In arguing against a reduction of words, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers urged singling out “bad briefs” rather than only lengthy ones. It advised courts to “post on their court websites short videos outlining how to write a decent brief.”

Robert N. Markle, a federal appellate lawyer, has argued − in his own personal view, not the government’s − that the limit should be reduced to 10,000 words. In a typical case, he said, “nothing justifies even approaching, much less reaching or exceeding 14,000 words.”

Still, he acknowledged that the cut of 500 words “was at least a start.”

(Adapted from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/business/dealbook/judges-push-brevity-in-briefs-and-get-a-torrent-of-arguments. html?_r=0)

Atenção: A questão refere-se ao texto abaixo.

Não cometo esse erro tão comum de julgar os outros por mim. Acredito de bom grado que o que está nos outros possa divergir essencialmente daquilo que está em mim. Não obrigo ninguém a agir como ajo e concebo mil e uma maneiras diferentes de viver; e, contrariamente ao que ocorre em geral, espantam-me bem menos as diferenças entre nós do que as semelhanças. Não imponho a outrem nem meu modo de vida nem meus princípios; encaro-o tal qual é, sem estabelecer comparações. O fato de não ser continente não me impede de admirar e aprovar os Feuillants* e os capuchinhos que o são; pela imaginação ponho-me muito bem em sua pele e os estimo e honro tanto mais quanto divergem de mim. Aspiro particularmente a que julguem cada qual como é, sem estabelecer paralelos com modelos tirados do comum. Minha fraqueza não altera absolutamente o apreço em que deva ter quem possui força e vigor. Embora me arraste ao nível do solo, não deixo de perceber nas nuvens, por mais alto que se elevem, certas almas que se distinguem pelo heroísmo. Já é muito para mim ter o julgamento justo, ainda que não o acompanhem minhas ações, e manter ao menos assim incorruptível essa qualidade. Já é muito ter boa vontade, mesmo quando as pernas fraquejam.

*Ordem religiosa.

(Extraído de MONTAIGNE, Michel de. “Catão, o jovem”, Ensaios, trad. Sérgio Milliet, São Paulo, Nova Cultural, 1996, p. 213)

Atenção: A questão refere-se ao texto abaixo.

Não cometo esse erro tão comum de julgar os outros por mim. Acredito de bom grado que o que está nos outros possa divergir essencialmente daquilo que está em mim. Não obrigo ninguém a agir como ajo e concebo mil e uma maneiras diferentes de viver; e, contrariamente ao que ocorre em geral, espantam-me bem menos as diferenças entre nós do que as semelhanças. Não imponho a outrem nem meu modo de vida nem meus princípios; encaro-o tal qual é, sem estabelecer comparações. O fato de não ser continente não me impede de admirar e aprovar os Feuillants* e os capuchinhos que o são; pela imaginação ponho-me muito bem em sua pele e os estimo e honro tanto mais quanto divergem de mim. Aspiro particularmente a que julguem cada qual como é, sem estabelecer paralelos com modelos tirados do comum. Minha fraqueza não altera absolutamente o apreço em que deva ter quem possui força e vigor. Embora me arraste ao nível do solo, não deixo de perceber nas nuvens, por mais alto que se elevem, certas almas que se distinguem pelo heroísmo. Já é muito para mim ter o julgamento justo, ainda que não o acompanhem minhas ações, e manter ao menos assim incorruptível essa qualidade. Já é muito ter boa vontade, mesmo quando as pernas fraquejam.

*Ordem religiosa.

(Extraído de MONTAIGNE, Michel de. “Catão, o jovem”, Ensaios, trad. Sérgio Milliet, São Paulo, Nova Cultural, 1996, p. 213)