Press Releases

"Reform in Law" Awarded for First Plain-Language Rewrite of Federal Civil Court Rules in 70 Years

May 5, 2007 - New York, New York: The Burton Awards has named the project to clarify the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, used in federal trial courts, as the winner of its 2007 "Reform in Law" award. The awards program is run in association with the Library of Congress and the Law Library of Congress, and the ceremony will be held at the Library of Congress, in Washington, D.C., on June 4, 2007.

The newly rewritten rules are the product of an intensive four-year effort by federal judges, practicing lawyers, law professors, and a drafting consultant. 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 awards will be given to three recipients: the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, which carried out the project; to the Standing Committee on Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which supervised the project and two earlier projects to rewrite the Federal Criminal and Appellate Rules; and to Professor Joseph Kimble from Thomas Cooley Law School, who served as the drafting consultant.

The civil rules-more than 300 pages as approved by the Supreme Court-were originally written in 1937 and have never been completely rewritten since then. The rules govern the procedure in all federal trial courts (U.S. District Courts); are relied on daily by countless judges and lawyers; serve as models for state courts; are studied by law students in a year-long course; and have produced many volumes of commentary.

The difference between the old and the new rules is striking. Here, for example, is an old rule:

"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."

The new rules will have great practical and symbolic importance. On the practical side, judges, lawyers, and law students will find them much easier to learn and use: they are shorter, clearer, plainer, more internally consistent, and much better organized and formatted. At the same time, they will help put to rest the mistaken notion that laws and rules must be written in the archaic, inflated, verbose, and convoluted style that has come to be known as legalese.

According to Judge Rosenthal, chair of the Advisory Committee, "Our goal was to make the rules clearer, more readable, and more consistent-without changing the substantive meaning. We think we have achieved that goal and are honored to receive this award."

NexisLexis is the National Contributor for the awards program.