From gravitas of fonts to God’s outrage

FROM the heights of last month’s argument on gay marriage rights, two rather less lofty issues have gripped the US legal community.

One is the matter of the best fonts to use in law and business. It’s a recurring issue that causes strong feelings among some lawyers – and courts.

A while ago, the America Bar Association ran an online conversation during which lawyers lobbied for their own particular favourites and against their pet hates.

One attorney wrote that the online discussion “shamed” him into scrapping his “beloved Courier New 13” because of the negative perceptions around the font.

“My old firm used Times Roman 12”, he said, “and I vomit in the mouth a little bit every time I see it, so that one is out. I have been using Garamond lately, but it’s just not satisfying (specially, the capital ‘J’ is upsetting).”

Another wrote that he used Times as a “workhorse font” – “because it does not call attention to itself… It’s kind of like driving a Honda Accord.”

Some lawyers said they simply complied with the relevant court’s requirements in deciding on a font.

But over the past month, the issue has surfaced again, this time related to CVs, with a US law blogger reporting that there had been at least six recent mainstream media articles – from the Huffington Post, USA Today and Bloomberg Business, among others – about what font you “absolutely must” use on your resumé. A book has even been written on the subject, Matthew Butterick’s Typography for Lawyers.

Joe Patrice who writes a blog titled, “Above the Law”, concluded that while it might just matter what font you chose for a CV, it was probably of concern only to the person who had to read through many resumés.

Risky

Here’s the consensus: Times New Roman is safe, but could be risky for that very reason. Huffington called it the “sweatpants” of fonts and a bad CV choice. Bloomberg’s typography expert called it “respectable but unadventurous and mundane”.

Even the US Supreme Court requires lawyers not to use Times New Roman, but to go for a font “from the Century family”, while another senior court points out that the Times of London chose this font to suit an audience that wanted a quick read, unlike legal writers who “want maximum retention”.

The conclusion has been that you’d be best off trying something other than Times New Roman, though you should always be sure to stay away from anything too fancy.

Another story going viral last week was a court action launched by Sylvia Ann Driskell 66, of Auburn, Nebraska. Her petition was launched in the district court. It was brought on behalf of God, she said, against all the Earth’s homosexuals.

Driskell describes herself as “ambassador” for “God, and His Son, Jesus Christ”; against “homosexuals, their given name homosexuals, their alias gay’”.

The case, formally titled “Driskell v Homosexuals” by the court system, was date-stamped by the office of the clerk, and filed with the US government court’s archive.

Her rambling petition included a statement that “they, the homosexuals, know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality”. She added, with what she must have thought was irrefutable logic: “Why else would they have been hiding in a closet?”

Although local court watchers had been looking forward to tracking the history of the case, it didn’t last long. Within a week, district court Judge John Gerrard had dismissed the lawsuit.

He said Driskell could not sue unidentified defendants and she had not set out a factual or even legal basis for her claim. He added that a federal court was “not a forum for debate or discourse on theological matters”.

“The court may decide what is lawful,” he said, “not what is sinful.”

He concluded, in bold font – and using Times New Roman, no less – “this particular forum is closed and the case will be dismissed”.