So a lot of lawyers are interested in typography. Who knew?
Typography for Lawyers, a book by Matthew Butterick, appears to be selling well, in part no doubt to a big endorsement by legal writing maven Bryan Garner.
I haven’t read the book, but I don’t get it. Why all the fuss?
Don’t we have enough to do to get the words right? Do we now need to be concerned with font choice? Does anyone really care about making their appellate brief visually appealing (pun intended)?
Not I.
The author makes his case against the use of Times New Roman in legal documents:
“When Times New Roman appears in a book, document, or advertisement, it connotes apathy. It says, ‘I submitted to the font of least resistance.’ Times New Roman is not a font choice so much as the absence of a font choice, like the blackness of deep space is not a color. To look at Times New Roman is to gaze into the void.
If you have a choice about using Times New Roman, please stop. Use something else. . . . Times New Roman connotes apathy. You are not apathetic.â€
Frankly, unless you’re using something weird, I don’t think font choice matters to most people. If the Court doesn’t specify what you can or can’t use, use what you want.
If you’re going to make a conscious decision about font choice, however, and your primary objective is to communicate your ideas and persuade the reader to your way of thinking, I suggest you choose Times New Roman (or some other common font) precisely because it is so common.
Choosing Times New Roman connotes apathy? Good. You should be apathetic about fonts. You’re not writing to show the court your artistic taste, you’re writing to be heard. You don’t want to call attention to your typography, anymore than an artist wants to call attention to the painting’s frame.
We all wear the same dark suits to court, don’t we? I don’t see anyone suggesting we start dressing more stylishly. We want the judge listening to our arguments, not admiring (or being distracted by) our clothing. The same goes for how we dress our writing.
I read your emails. Today you missed the point. Appearances matter. Clients are impressed with professional looking documents. It is one way that have to judge.
Read the book. Your view may change.
Thanks for commenting, Chris. Do you think Times New Roman is unprofessional?
While more stylish typefaces (or at least not Time Roman) may have little impact on a judge hearing a case, the appearance of transnational documents can have a distinct impact. Personally, my practice brings me into contact with many people involved in creative fields and the visual impact, along with the tone of letters (both for marketing and in practice) and agreements, is something that I consider because something that looks stodgy because of the use of a more standard typeface can result in more concern over the agreement than in necessary.
Possibly more important, however is the readability of various typefaces. Even for the trial attorney, understanding the difference in readability of serif and san-serif typefaces can be important (some fonts are also better for reading on a computer than on the printed page) If you don’t think typeface matters consider the frequent challenge of making a disclaimer stick out in an agreement (Frankly the ALL CAPS method is something I could do without). In the end it is about both readability AND tone – both essential elements in communicating.
Ken, I’m 100% with you on readability and tone. The debate will rage on about choice of typeface, it appears.
Although by and large I agree with Mr. Butterick’s suggestions, I wouldn’t be too concerned about using Times New Roman. It’s easily readable and that is the main thing. Using it is certainly not “unprofessional.”
The distinctions among different typefaces in the Times Roman “family” are less important than some other points that Mr. Butterick’s book makes. One key point is never to use sans-serif typefaces in text.
As a former direct-mail and print advertising copywriter, this is second nature to me. For at least a century, readability studies have shown that serif type is much easier to read than sans-serif type, and surveys of readers of all levels of education find that the vast majority of readers prefer serif, and a fair number of readers are irritated by sans-serif.
The less effort the judge or other party must expend to read a document, the more easily he can grok its message. That is both intuitive and proven by studies. That means that persuasive materials such as briefs are made more persuasive if prepared in serif face.
Davidka, I agree re using serif in print (and should have said so). TNR is serif.
On screen readability tests show sans serif to be a bit easier, don’t they?
Thanks for your thoughts.
I read in Bryan A. Garner’s book (at least I think I did) that Century Schoolbook with a font size 11 was his recommendation re correspondence and pleadings. Thoughts? Feedback?
IMO and when it’s all said and done, the right persuasive content shared in the right context will help you win motions and cases. Subject to the rules of court, it doesn’t really matter what the font is as long as it looks professional and is readable.
I agree with you, David. There is nothing “unprofessional” about Times New Roman, and I am not ashamed to appear “stodgy”in my documents. I am passionate about language and advocacy, but will cop to a charge of apathy about fonts.
Yep. As long as it’s readable (serif font, big enough font size, sufficient leading and white space, etc.) it shouldn’t matter that the type face chosen is commonplace. That and I believe it’s actually better if it is.
As stated, I haven’t read the book, I’m just commenting on the authors suggestion that if we use TNR, we’re doing our readers a disservice and making ourselves look bad.
Many have written to recommend the book. I think I’d rather spend my time working on “language and advocacy” as you say, rather than typography.
Thanks, Karen.