I generally don't all that much like opinions that look as if they're unedited bench memos from the clerks or staff attorneys. You know the type of the things I'm talking about. Opinions that are very highly structured, introduce the standards and contentions in an artificial manner, etc. I'll admit that I can't authoritatively define the characteristics of what I'll call bench-memos-quickly-turned-into-published-opinions in detail. But I definitely know 'em when I see 'em.
That said, I gotta admit, if I was the judge, and had to go through every little picayune contention in this child-and-spousal-support case and anything like the resulting 61-page opinion, I might well be driven to drink. Or worse.
So I'll similarly excuse anyone from just making some edits to the thing and sending it out. As well as praise the people in chambers who actually struggled through the thing to craft all 61 pages. There are things in life that are fun, but that's not one of 'em.
For similar reasons, I'll overlook -- but briefly mention -- the "track changes" edit that was erroneously left in on page 49. Sure, it's a strikeout, and even in red. You should probably have caught that before hitting the "publish" button.
But I bet your eyes started go glaze over at around page 40 as you edited the thing for the third or fourth time. Maybe not surprising that you missed the little red struck-out "d".
Better than drinking.
