So a lot of lawyers are interested in typography. Who knew?

Typography for Lawyers, a book by Matthew Butterick, appears to be selling well, in part no doubt to a big endorsement by legal writing maven Bryan Garner.

I haven’t read the book, but I don’t get it. Why all the fuss?

Don’t we have enough to do to get the words right? Do we now need to be concerned with font choice? Does anyone really care about making their appellate brief visually appealing (pun intended)?

Not I.

The author makes his case against the use of Times New Roman in legal documents:

“When Times New Roman appears in a book, document, or advertisement, it connotes apathy. It says, ‘I submitted to the font of least resistance.’ Times New Roman is not a font choice so much as the absence of a font choice, like the blackness of deep space is not a color. To look at Times New Roman is to gaze into the void.

If you have a choice about using Times New Roman, please stop. Use something else. . . . Times New Roman connotes apathy. You are not apathetic.”

Frankly, unless you’re using something weird, I don’t think font choice matters to most people. If the Court doesn’t specify what you can or can’t use, use what you want.

If you’re going to make a conscious decision about font choice, however, and your primary objective is to communicate your ideas and persuade the reader to your way of thinking, I suggest you choose Times New Roman (or some other common font) precisely because it is so common.

Choosing Times New Roman connotes apathy? Good. You should be apathetic about fonts. You’re not writing to show the court your artistic taste, you’re writing to be heard. You don’t want to call attention to your typography, anymore than an artist wants to call attention to the painting’s frame.

We all wear the same dark suits to court, don’t we? I don’t see anyone suggesting we start dressing more stylishly. We want the judge listening to our arguments, not admiring (or being distracted by) our clothing. The same goes for how we dress our writing.