Clearly Preferable

As a young lawyer, I observed the pain that went into a comprehensive revision of the Ontario Rules of Practice. Homenaje a Walter Williston and John Morden.

Now the Burton Awards – the Oscars for Legal Writing – are being awarded for a four year project to rewrite the FRCP. The new rules were approved by the Supreme Court of the United States and sent to Congress on April 30. They are scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2007.

The Rules were drafted in 1937 and while they’ve been changed and supplemented over the years, they have never been systematically revised – until now. The principles used in the redraft are explained in a useful two page article.

Take a look at some of the before and after examples

“When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements.”

Here’s the new version:

“If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.”

Old

Old:

When an order is made in favor of a person who is not a party to the action, that person may enforce obedience to the order by the same process as if a party; and, when obedience to an order may be lawfully enforced against a person who is not a party, that person is liable to the same process for enforcing obedience to the order as if a party.

New:

When an order grants relief for a nonparty or may be enforced against a nonparty, the procedure for enforcing the order is the same as for a party.