As promised yesterday, this post will cover what a certificate of compliance under the new word-count rules might look like, now that every computer-generated document filed in a Texas appellate court on or after December 1, 2012—yes, every one, except for the record—must include such a certificate.
The new rules provide the logical starting place. TRAP 9.4(i)(3) provides:
Certificate of Compliance. A computer-generated document must include a certificate by counsel or an unrepresented party stating the number of words in the document. The person certifying may rely on the word count of the computer program used to prepare the document.
I received some unsolicited suggestions today and quickly realized that I had lost an opportunity in not holding a contest to craft the best certificate. Here are what some of my Texas appellate brethren have put together so far:
I certify that this document contains ____ words (counting all parts of the document). The body text is in 14 point font, and the footnote text is in 12 point font. —Rob Gilbreath
I certify that this document brief/petition was prepared with Microsoft Word 2012, and that, according to that program’s word-count function, the sections covered by TRAP 9.4(i)(1) contain ____ words. —Leif Olson
Relying on the word count function in the word processing software used to produce this document, I certify that the number of words in this reply (excluding any caption, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented, statement of jurisdiction, statement of procedural history, signature, proof of service, certification, certificate of compliance, and appendix) is ____. —Ben Taylor
I think all of these comply with the letter of TRAP 9.4(i)(3), considering its rather sparse express requirements. Rob’s sticks to the literal text, except to note compliance with the new font mandate, and does not rely on exclusions to come in under the word limit. Leif’s goes on to identify his word-processing program, express reliance on it to determine word count, and cite the rule on exclusions. Ben’s takes yet a third approach, reciting the sections excluded from the word count and noting reliance on his word-processing program in determining it, yet does not cite the rule on exclusions or identifying the software used to produce the document.
My stab at a certificate of compliance is based on the 5th Circuit form, which addresses similar typeface and word-count requirements, modified to fit the structure and content of the new Texas rules:
This document complies with the typeface requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e) because it has been prepared in a conventional typeface no smaller than 14-point for text and 12-point for footnotes. This document also complies with the word-count limitations of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i), if applicable, because it contains ____ words, excluding any parts exempted by Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(1).
As a practical matter, the first sentence is probably unnecessary because TRAP 9.4(i)(3) doesn’t require any certification regarding typeface. Presumably, the clerk’s office will bounce any brief that fails to use a proper-sized font.
Which approach is best? It would depend in large part on the document being filed. For a letter or motion—neither of which are actually subject to word limits at this point—shorter is probably better. For a petition or brief, more detail may be warranted. Otherwise, it will be mostly a matter of preference. As long as the the document uses the right font sizes and the letter of Rule 9.4(i)((3) is satisfied, the filer will probably be fine.