Courts Should Avoid Handwritten Orders

State and federal courts have adopted a number of technological advances in recent years that make it much easier to handle judicial matters. For instance, many courts adopted virtual courtrooms complete with cameras, monitors, and other systems to accommodate remote proceedings. In addition, most courts have adopted electronic filing systems that are much more efficient than paper filing systems.  However, many courts still issue handwritten orders. Although this might be more convenient in certain circumstances, courts should avoid handwritten orders for a variety of reasons.

Difficult To Read

Perhaps the most important reason why handwritten orders should be avoided is that they are difficult to read. In many instances, handwritten orders are written on carbon-copy forms, and a copy of a form might be difficult for a litigant to review. The process of scanning a handwritten order might also degrade the quality of the text on the decision. Moreover, some judges and judicial staff have absolutely horrible handwriting, and it is altogether difficult to discern what is written in the order.

A few years ago, I filed a motion that the judge wanted to resolve while all of the parties were in the courtroom. The judge wrote out an order that was around a paragraph long, and he told us we would be able to see the decision once it was uploaded later that day. When I finally viewed the decision, I could not make out some critical language in the order. My adversary and I had different interpretations of what was written since different interpretations of the language had different impacts on our clients. We ended up needing to request clarification from the court, which wasted more time than if the court typed out the order and uploaded that instead of a handwritten order.

Space Limitations

Handwritten order are often much shorter than typed orders. This is because it usually takes longer to write a decision than it does to type an order. Accordingly, judges may not include much reasoning around their decisions when they choose to handwrite an order. This can have significant consequences if an order is appealed and if another judge needs to evaluate why a judge made a given decision on an issue.

Sometimes, litigants can procure the record of oral argument to ascertain more context about how a judge arrived at a given decision.  However, not all oral arguments are recorded, and sometimes judges do not specify why they decided a certain way during oral argument.  It is much more prudent in many circumstances for judges to take their time to type out orders so that they can be more comprehensive when deciding how they arrived at a given position.

Editing Is Difficult

It is much more difficult to edit a handwritten order than it is to edit a typed order. If a judge wants to change something in a handwritten decision, they may need to strike out language, include arrows to added language, and tuck extra words into the margins. One time, I saw a heavily edited handwritten order that looked more like a treasure map than a judicial order! If judges type out their order, they can just delete or add text before printing out the order and filing it. This has a much cleaner look than a handwritten order in most circumstances.

Clearly, some orders are just easier to handwrite. For instance, if the parties stipulate to items, it is usually easier for the parties to write the items down and have a judge “so order” the stipulation. Moreover, for smaller matters, it might be completely appropriate for a judge to scribble out a brief order. However, in the majority of circumstances, it is usually best to avoid handwritten orders for the sake of clarity and efficiency.

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothman.law.