Memorandum

To:	Judge Dorothy Toth Beasley
From:	Judge Edward H. Johnson
Subject:	Checking of Briefs by Clerk's Staff
Date:	November 7, 1997

Thank you for your memorandum of October 30, 1997 regarding compliance with Rule 27 (c) (3) and the efforts of the clerk's office to alert the judges on this Court of non-compliance and your suggestion that the clerk's office also undertake to review the briefs for compliance with Rule 1 (b) regarding the font size of briefs and the number of pages. After receipt of your memorandum, I asked Bill Martin to review the matter and respond to me as judge in charge of the clerk's office. After discussing the matter with him and reviewing the pros and cons of the clerk's office following your suggestions, I have formulated this response.

You suggest that the clerk's office staff can check briefs for type size and number of pages since clerk's office staff is already checking for reference to the transcript or record. Additionally, you suggest that if a question comes up regarding the proper citations to the record or transcript, then that matter be taken directly to the judge's office as opposed to central staff. My recollection was the Court wanted the matter taken to central staff first to make sure that Gail, or the other non-lawyers in the clerk's office staff, were correct in their assessment. Central staff was to review the matter in an effort to save time in the individual judges' offices and to ascertain that a problem existed before the matter was transferred to a judge's office. However, your suggestion of having the judge's office review this, rather than central staff, is certainly plausible.

I, however, do not agree with your suggestion that the clerk's office staff be responsible for checking and ensuring compliance with Rule 1(b) regarding type or font size and the number of pages. After considering your memorandum, I am not sure that it is the proper function of the clerk's office to check the cites to the record and the transcript. While it is much easier to do a cite check for the record/transcript cite, checking for page numbers and type size would require additional time from clerk's office personnel.

I am not sure this extra time is warranted since the vast majority of briefs that are filed do comply with our rules.

Currently, Gail Arceneaux is the person who is responsible for receiving the briefs, checking to see if they are signed and contain a certificate of service and contain an original and two copies. Gail also dockets the briefs, marks them for the respective judges' offices and puts them with the record or in the judges' slot in the mail cart. There are approximately 2,600 direct appeals filed each year, with each case having at least two briefs and many cases having four or five briefs. This added burden of checking for the type size on all these briefs will entail much more time for Gail, or her backup.

There are approximately 260 direct appeals per judge per year. This averages slightly less than 87 cases per staff attorney per year or 1.67 cases per staff attorney per week. This number is further reduced by the number of cases which are assigned to Judge Banke to hear for the Court. In addition, approximately 14% of all of our docketed cases are dismissed on the recommendation of central staff, further reducing the workload to about 1.5 cases per staff attorney per week.

In the same docket year, Gail is required to process the 2,600 briefs of the appellant, appellee, reply briefs, supplement briefs, amicus briefs and all motions. She opens all mail, clocks and stamps, sorts, does computer entry and distributes all incoming mail, as well as providing a case history to the Clerk on all prisoner correspondence. She fills in in the clerk's office when other staff are absent.

As an alternative to adding this duty to the clerk's office, I would suggest that when the briefs are filed, the original goes to the office of the judge assigned to the particular case. The staff attorney assigned to that particular case can review the brief and make sure that it complies with the Rule 1 (b) and Rule 27 (c) (3). Any questions or concerns about compliance with our rules can be immediately discussed with the judge and instructions can be directed to the clerk's office as to the appropriate action to take in the individual cases. Again, we are fortunate in that the great majority of briefs and motions which are docketed do comply with our rules.

After review by the judge's office, the briefs can be marked, either on the brief or with a court action ticket, as to being acceptable or unacceptable, and John Daniel can pick up the brief from the judge's office to be re-filed with the record, and appropriate action taken by the clerk's office, if necessary.

I believe Court protocol would require suggestions for changes to the clerk's office procedure be directed to the judge in charge of the clerk's office and the chief judge before they are directed to the clerk

or the clerk's office staff. If you would like to discuss this matter with me in greater detail, please let me know.

cc:	Chief Judge Gary B. Andrews

Presiding Judge Marion T. Pope

William L. Martin, III