Fifth Circuit Comments to Judicial Conference re Citation Reform

April 18, 1997© HyperLaw, Inc.®

Back to Judicial Conference Comments Page

HyperLaw, Inc.

Fifth Circuit Comments to Judicial Conference re Citation Reform -- March/April 1997

Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas

HyperLaw Comments:

Following is the survey sent to Federal Court Judges and Magistrates by the Administrative Office and Automation Committee of the Judicial Conference and the responses received from judges in the Fifth circuit. These responses, for all circuits, are also available in RTF format. In addition, individual letters were sent by certain judges. These may be found on the Judicial Conference Comments Page.

The comments have been excerpted for the Fifth Circuit.

The Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit is [note information as to judges is current as of 1996]:

[to be provided]

See, critical comments re survey by Judge Leif M. Clark, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, Texas:

"I am concerned that the materials furnished in this survey were woefully inadequate in addressing what I believe are very real issues for the judges who are being asked to complete this survey. The questions in the survey are "bottom line," and do not reflect the nuances of the issue, or the myriad of reasons that a given judge may have answered in the way he or she did. As a result, I think it will be dangerous indeed to draw any conclusions of value with regard to the attitude of the federal judiciary to this issue."

To make your views known as to judges who have made anonymous comments, one could communicate with the Chief Judge of the Circuit wherein the judge sits. The Chief Judge is also one of the twenty-seven members of the Judicial Conference which will decide whether to adopt the ABA Proposal at the semi-annual meeting of the Judicial Conference in September, 1997.

Following are the survey questions. Explanatory materials did not accompany the survey. The identity of the Judges responding to the survey has not made public. Many judges see no need to change the system. They like the way it works now. Many judges do not see that it is their responsibility to assure that opinions that are authoritative and citable are made available to the public either in paper or in electronic form. In addition, many judges, including those who will vote on approving the proposal after the Committee is finished with its work, seem to have prejudged the issue, without the facts.

ABA RESOLUTION ON UNIVERSAL CITATION SYSTEM
FEDERAL COURT JUDGE SURVEY FORM

1 Should the clerk of your court be required to add an official citation number beyond the case number to each opinion?

2. Should the federal judiciary Require the use of the official citation?

Permit it?

3 .Should federal judges number the paragraphs in fin opinion so that there may be Pinpoint citations in which no private sector company can have a copyright.

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL JUDGES SURVEY ON ADOPTION OF THE ABA CITATION RESOLUTION - FIFTH CIRCUIT ONLY

Legends
Judge Type - Cir = Circuit Dist = District Bank = Bankruptcy
Mag = Magistrate CFC = Court of Federal Claims CIT = Court of International Trade

Judge Type	Cir.	#1	#2a	#2b	#3	Comments
Dist	5	No	no	...	no	#2b. No opinion
Dist	5					#1. Absolutely Not #2a. Absolutely not #2b. No opinion #3 Absolutely not
Mag	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	no	no	yes	no
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	yes	yes	no	yes
Bank	5	no	no	yes	no
Dist	5	no	no	...	no	#2b.undecided
Mag	5	no	no	no	no
Cir	5	no	no	open	no
Bank	5	no..	no	yes	...	#1. No-The present system is adequate #3. I would not want to do this-
Mag	5	no...	No	no	no	#1. No. The current system is reasonably effective. The additional expense and effort is not justified.
Mag	5	yes	....	yes	yes	#2a. It should be an option.
Bank	5	no	no	yes	no
Mag	5	no..	...		...	#1. No-I think that would be meaningless since most of our opinions aren't published and there is no official reporter for our court. #2a. I don't understand the question. #3. That would be fine - and probably helpful
Dist	5	...	No	yes...	...	#1. Not unless the judges have agreed that the clerk should add an official citation number beyond the case number to each opinion. #2b. Yes. Each court should have the discretion to decide whether or not to use the ABA citation system. This approach recognizes that courts may view the importance of implementing the ABA citation system differently because of differences among them as to such matters as fiscal priorities and local bar reaction to the ABA citation system. #3. Numbering of paragraphs in an opinion should occur because it will assist future review of the opinion.
Dist	5	no	no	yes	no
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	.....	No	no..	...	#1, Absolutely Not!! #2b. No, it is a waste of time! #3. Absolutely not. But if this is adopted by The Conference, then it should require the attorneys to number each paragraph in their briefs. And number their witnesses, too.
Bank	5	no	no		no
Cir	5	no	no	ok	ok
Dist	5	no	no	yes	no
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Cir	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	no	no	yes	no
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Mag	5	No	No	No	No
Dist	5	no	no	no...	No...	#2b. No, because it will be done if "permitted". Spending resources on developing and maintaining a system wholly unneeded. #3. No. I am not in the business of stifling business. "Official pinpoint" citations only exacerbate mindless citations.
Dist	5	no	no	yes	no
Dist	5	no	no	yes	no
Bank	5	no	no	all right	no!
Dist	5	yes	yes	yes	yes
Bank	5	no	no	Perhaps	no
Cir	5	no	no	...	No	#2b. Don't need permission
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	no	no	...	No	#2b. Yes, but only with the explicit statement that use of the official citation is entirely optional on the part of the court issuing the opinion.
Mag	5	no	no		no
Mag	5	yes...	yes		yes
Dist	5	...	...	...	No!....	#1. Absolutely not! #2. Absolutely not! #3. No! This is needless additional work for the courts and a remarkably stupid idea!
Mag	5	yes	yes		yes
Dist	5	no	no	no	no....	#3. I am disappointed at the bias displayed in this question against the private sector. It should be governmental policy to encourage, not discourage entrepreneurs. If persons in the private sector by wits and determination can develop a case reference or research system, let them proceed--if people are employed as a result, so much the better. If copyright protection or any other lawful protection can be extended to such entrepreneurs, why should we discourage the application of those laws to such lawful and beneficial conduct? If we discourage the private sector, then the public sector will have to do the job. I suggest that would be an expensive and fruitless effort. I suggest we leave this debate and spend our energy and budget on other issues of more significance and relevance to our public charge of providing judicial services.
Bank	5	no	no	yes	no
Bank	5	no	no	no	no
Mag	5	no	no	yes...	no	#2b. Yes, but should also require traditional citations
Mag	5	no	no	no	no
Mag	5	no	no	...	No	#2b. I have no opinion on this other than to suggest that such permission either be granted or disallowed throughout the entire federal court system. To me consistency is the most salient factor.
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	no...	no..	...	no	#1. No. It will result in total confusion with every clerk of court creating citations. #2a. No, the current system works too well. #2b. Depends on the final plan
Bank	5	No	no	yes	no
Dist	5	no	no		no
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	yes	yes		yes
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	no..	...		...	#1. Without knowing more about the ABA proposal, I must answer "No." The ABA resolution refers to "each decision." This question uses the term "each opinion." "Each decision" could be read to mean every order. I am not in favor of using an official citation number for every single order I sign or even every memorandum opinion. #2a. If the federal judiciary should adopt this ABA proposal and begin numbering opinions and paragraphs, then lawyers should be required to use the official citation. But again, each judge must be able to decide which opinions and orders should be given an official citation number for citation by lawyers as authority. The system we have now whereby each judge decides which opinions to send to West Publishing for publication seems to be working fine for both bench and bar. #3. Same answer to question 2.
Mag	5	no	no		no
Dist	5	no	no	no	no	Is there not enough work for everyone? Who spends time thinking up this kind of thing?
Bank	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	yes	no	yes...	...	#3. No opinion on this, Page Number should be adequate
Distt	5	no	no	yes	no
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	no	no..	No..	no	#2a Not at the Dist. Level #2b Not at the Dist. Level
Dist	5	no	no		no
Cir	5	yes	yes	yes	yes
Dist	5	no	no	no	no
Dist	5	...	No	yes	no...	#1. 1. How would this work for district courts? #1. 2. The docket numbers are cumbersome and use of them is prone to frequent error. #1. 3. This system is arguably acceptable to me for appellate decisions. #3. No. This would be unduly burdensome.
Dist	5	no..	no	yes	no	#1. It is alright for the Circuit Courts but not practical for many district courts. We have many judges scattered over several divisions and hundreds of miles. Each opinion by each judge is a decision of our "court", but there is no central clearing house.
Mag	5	no	no	yes	no
Dist	5	no	no	yes	no
Dist	5	no	no	...	No	#2b. Only for unofficial or unreported decisions and copy of decision should be furnished to court.
Bank	5	no ....	no	no	no...	#1. No, Unnecessary and disruptive. #3. No - it's another layer of work on top of other work to be done.
Mag	5	No	No	No	No
Mag	5	no	no	....	No	#2b. I have no opinion on that--it should be discretionary with the court.
Dist	5	no	no	no	no	I have reviewed the proposal of the ABA to develop a "universal" citation system. I am opposed to any change in this regard. I believe that these alterations would place an unnecessary burden on the Court and would not result in any improvement in the system. The Louisiana Supreme Court has changed its system of citation, and most lawyers with whom I am in contact find it more time consuming and of little value. I believe that this proposal should be rejected in its totality.