When drafting complex, lengthy Federal Appellate documents under intense time pressure, in a new jurisdiction with its own set of complex rules, it is inevitable, even for the most experienced attorneys, to draft briefs with errors. Even at large law firms, with armies of Associates to comb through text, niggling and potentially embarrassing errors still leak through. The FederalCourt.Press editor review is like an angel on your shoulder, providing a fresh set of eyes. When you file a Circuit Court brief, Amicus Brief, or other Appeals court filing, your documents will live forever within the federal court archives, through Pacer, Westlaw, Nexus Lexus or other services, and be searched upon by future generations of attorneys. When documents take on this level of importance, and outsiders proofread can make a significant difference.
The Supreme Court Press Editor Review has been described by clients as joyous, transformative, decisive, incisive, and the best value they have ever received from a legal service. Our clients have credited the Editor Review as the make or break service that led their clients to victory. If you choose to hire the editor, we will review conduct the complete text review of your document and report to you on the following:
| The Editor Review Seeks Out | |
| Typographical Errors |
|
| Wording Issues |
|
| Logical Problems |
|
| Opportunities |
|
Courts, too, are bound by First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then draw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker. It must be noted; moreover, that this undertaking would require substantial litigation over an extended time, all to interpret a law that beyond doubt discloses serious 1st Amendment flaws. The interpretive process itself would create an inivitable, perverted, and serious risks of chilling protected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions that, in the end, would itself would be questionable. First Amendment standards, however, “must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech”.
Available 24/7
info@federalcourt.press
