Source: https://www.llrx.com/2015/07/cut-and-paste-opinions-a-turing-test-for-judicial-decision-making/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:39:47+00:00

Document:
This article collects notable decisions and scholarly research concerning the legal and ethical issues associated with cut-and-paste decision-making.
“We must deal at the outset with the Fourth Circuit’s suggestion that “close scrutiny of the record in this case [was] justified by the manner in which the opinion was prepared,” id., at 156 — that is, by the District Court’s adoption of petitioner’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court recalled that the Fourth Circuit had on many occasions condemned the practice of announcing a decision and leaving it to the prevailing party to write the findings of fact and conclusions of law. See, e.g., Cuthbertson v. Biggers Bros., Inc., 702 F.2d 454 (1983); EEOC v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 698 F.2d 633 (1983); Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Kendall Co., 288 F.2d 719 (1961). The court rejected petitioner’s contention that the procedure followed by the trial judge in this case was proper because the judge had given respondent an opportunity to object to the proposed findings and had not adopted petitioner’s findings verbatim. According to the court, the vice of the procedure lay in the trial court’s solicitation of findings after it had already announced its decision and in the court’s adoption of the “substance” of petitioner’s proposed findings.
We, too, have criticized courts for their verbatim adoption of findings of fact prepared by prevailing parties, particularly when those findings have taken the form of conclusory statements unsupported by citation to the record. See, e.g., United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U. S. 651, 656-657 (1964); United States v. Marine Bancorporation, 418 U. S. 602, 615, n. 13 (1974). We are also aware of the potential for overreaching and exaggeration on the part of attorneys preparing findings of fact when they have already been informed that the judge has decided in their favor. See J. Wright, The Nonjury Trial — Preparing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Opinions, Seminars for Newly Appointed United States District Judges 159, 166 (1962). Nonetheless, our previous discussions of the subject suggest that even when the trial judge adopts proposed findings verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous. United States v. Marine Bancorporation, supra, at 615, n. 13; United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., supra, at 656-657.
“We have held that the adoption of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law supplied by prevailing parties after a bench trial, although disapproved of, is not in and of itself reason for reversal. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 572, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (“[E]ven when the trial judge adopts the findings verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous.”); Lansford-Coaldale Joint Water Auth. v. Tonolli Corp., 4 F.3d 1209, 1215-16 (3d Cir.1993) (disapproving of the verbatim adoption of proposed findings of fact but acknowledging the rule announced in Anderson and noting that there was “no indication in the record that the district court was unfamiliar with the testimony or exhibits or that it was using the proposed findings as a crutch; if [there were such an indication] we might view the matter differently”). However, we made clear that the findings of fact adopted by the court must be the result of the trial judge’s independent judgment. Pa. Envtl. Def. Found.: (PEDF) v. Canon-McMillian Sch. Dist., 152 F.3d 228, 233 (3d Cir.1998) (citing with approval Odeco, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. 663 F.2d 650, 652-53 (5th Cir.1981)). “The central issue is whether the district court had made an independent judgment.” Id.
Here, however, we are not dealing with findings of fact. Instead, we are confronted with a District Court opinion that is essentially a verbatim copy of the appellees’ proposed opinion. This fact, even standing alone, would be enough for us to distinguish the holdings in Anderson and Lansford-Coaldale. We agree with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s observation that: There is authority for the submission to the court of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the attorneys for the opposing parties in a case, and the adoption of such of the proposed findings and conclusions as the judge may find to be proper…. But there is no authority in the federal courts that countenances the preparation of the opinion by the attorney for either side. That practice involves the failure of the trial judge to perform his judicial function. Chicopee Mfg. Corp. v. Kendall Co., 288 F.2d 719, 725 (4th Cir.1961) (emphasis added).
“Second, the complainant alleges the district judge plagiarized the defendants’ briefs when drafting the order dismissing the complainant’s lawsuit. For example, the complainant estimates “[t]he Court plagiarized approximately 55% of Defendant’s [brief] … (approximately 65% if you omit the regurgitation of the facts).” The complainant criticizes many other aspects of the subject order, including allegedly erroneous legal citations and improper paraphrasing. The complainant received rulings on such allegations from the district judge in a second post-judgment order. But cf. Bradley v. Md. Cas. Co., 382 F.2d 415, 422-24 (8th Cir.1967) (treating a similar argument as a due process claim). These allegations must be dismissed because they are directly related to the merits of the judge’s decision or procedural rulings and are therefore not proper subjects of a judicial complaint. See 28 U.S.C. S 352(b)(1)(A)(ii); J.C.U.S. Rule 11(c)(1)(B). To the extent complainant’s allegations may not be merits-related, I briefly address the charges.
Complainant accurately identifies many similarities between the defendants’ briefs and the district judge’s order. Lawyers craft briefs for the express purpose of aiding the judge in making her decision, and the district judge is entitled to borrow from those briefs as she may see fit. Judges must be granted considerable leeway in the drafting of orders.
The subject judge apparently treated the parties’ briefs as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. In doing so, a district judge reflects the historic practice of a judge asking the prevailing party to prepare proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and even the order itself. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). . . .
“Notably, as the Georgia Supreme Court acknowledged, the State’s opinion discusses statements purportedly made on Jefferson’s behalf by a witness “who did not testify” or participate in the proceedings. 263 Ga., at 318, 431 S.E.2d, at 112; see State Order 24-25. Nonetheless, the opinion “was adopted verbatim by the [state] court.” 263 Ga., at 317, 431 S.E.2d, at 111. And while the State Supreme Court recognized that we have ” ‘criticized’ ” such a practice, it affirmed the judgment. Id., at 317, 320, 431 S.E.2d, at 112, 114 (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 572, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1985)) . . . .
“The continuing practice of verbatim adoption of proposed findings by district courts in judge-trials remains a sore point in this state, especially to losing counsel who see therein a lack of due consideration by the district courts of their parties’ contentions of fact and law. We expressed our disapproval of adopting verbatim the prevailing parties’ proposed findings and conclusions in Tomaskie v. Tomaskie (1981), Mont., 625 P.2d 536, 38 St.Rep. 416, and in that case referred to Canon 19, Canons of Judicial Ethics, 144 Mont. at xxvi-xxvii. In In Re Marriage of Jensen (1981), Mont., 631 P.2d 700, 703-711, 38 St.Rep. 1109, where the District Court had adopted verbatim findings and conclusions, it was suggested by appellant that a lower standard should exist for the review by us of findings and conclusions drafted by counsel for the prevailing party than exists under the “clearly erroneous” standard of Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. We declined to adopt that suggestion in Jensen. Again, in City of Billings v. Public Service Com’n. (1981), Mont., 631 P.2d 1295, 38 St.Rep. 1162, we met the same problem, repeated that we disapproved of the practice of adopting verbatim findings and conclusions submitted by the prevailing party, but restated that the standard for review of the findings and conclusions remains the same, citing United States v. El Paso Gas Co. (1964), 376 U.S. 651, at 656, 84 S.Ct. 1044, at 1047, 12 L.Ed.2d 12, at 17.
Circuit Rule 50, which requires a judge to give reasons for dismissing a complaint, serves three functions: to create the mental discipline that an obligation to state reasons produces, to assure the parties that the court has considered the important arguments, and to enable a reviewing court to know the reasons for the judgment. A reference to another judge’s opinion at an earlier stage of the case, plus an unreasoned statement of legal conclusions, fulfils none of these.
“P51 It bears repeating that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed after the evidentiary hearing in the underlying criminal case were drafted entirely by appellate counsel for Mr. Potts with the intention of gaining a reversal. The trial court signed off on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which upon review, clearly reflect appellate counsel’s untested theory of the case. The Court of Criminal Appeals then reversed Mr. Potts’ conviction for prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel relying solely on these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The State’s failure to make any kind of record at the evidentiary hearing and its blatant attempt to sweep the misgivings of the Muskogee County District Attorney’s office under the rug at the expense of Respondent Starr has exponentially compounded all aspects of this case. The reversal of Mr. Potts’ conviction is not supported by the evidentiary record presented to the PRT [Professional Responsibility Tribunal].
“The district court adopted father’s proposed order almost verbatim. Mother argues that the district court did so improperly. Appellate courts disfavor the verbatim adoption of a party’s proposed ruling by the district court but do not automatically reverse a district court for doing so. See Schallinger v. Schallinger, 699 N.W.2d 15, 23 (Minn.App.2005), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 2005). Verbatim adoption of a proposed ruling raises questions about whether the district court independently evaluated the evidence and whether the ruling adopted by the district court is sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review. Bliss v. Bliss, 493 N.W.2d 583, 590 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. Feb. 12, 1993).
“The federal appellate courts now decide eighty-five percent of their cases through unpublished, nonprecedential opinions. These are meant to resolve disputes squarely governed by existing precedent; they are not supposed to make law. Scholars have paid little attention, however, to the process by which unpublished opinions are prepared — or to ways in which this process allows some unpublished opinions to become de facto precedent.
This essay identifies one such way. “Copy-paste precedent” arises when the text of an unpublished opinion gets repeatedly copied and pasted by staff attorneys drafting subsequent opinions on the same topic. Whereas ordinary precedent is meant to be reasoned and published, then cited and quoted, “copy-paste precedent” gets followed without being either cited or explicitly quoted, thereby gaining the influence of precedent without real precedent’s authority — or scrutiny. The obscurity of copy-paste precedent makes it, paradoxically, harder to correct or overturn than regular binding precedent and strips it of the rule of law, legitimacy, notice, and reliance values standardly invoked to support precedent’s use.
1 Common terms that have appeared in the cut-and-paste cases and literature on this subject include: copy-and-paste, copy-paste, judicial copying, judicial plagiarism, ghostwriting, recycling, photocopying, verbatim, in haec verba, xeroxing, rubberstamping and boilerplate. These reflect differing conceptions that range from a mechanical innocent word processing technique to weighted citations to the briefs of one party to blatant copyright violations and unlawful delegation of judicial authority.
2 New scientific techniques have already been enlisted to uncover cut-and-paste operations, including computational linguistics, citation studies and plagiarism software. See Matthew Laroche, High Court Studies: Is the New York State Court of Appeals Still “Friendless?” An Empirical Study of Amicus Curiae Participation, 72 Alb. L. Rev. 701 (2009)(citation study); Pamela Corley et al., Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content, SSRN (2013)(plagiarism detection software); Stephen J. Choi and G. Mitu Gulati, Which Judges Write Their Opinions (and Should We Care), 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1077 (2004-2005)(computational linguistics).
3 See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. R. 52; Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985). See generally Ken Strutin, Case Law in an Era of Heightened Scrutiny, LLRX, Aug. 18, 2014 (Judicial decisions embody legal reasoning, societal values and support the foundations of our legal system. For scholars, lawyers and librarians there are three essential components: decision-making, opinion writing and publication. Recently, scrutiny of Supreme Court opinions and the work habits of the courts in general has been drawing attention to the entirety of judicial work that is at the heart of precedent.”).
4 See Carol M. Bast and Linda B. Samuels, Plagiarism and Legal Scholarship in the Age of Information Sharing: The Need for Intellectual Honesty, 57 Cath. U. L. Rev. 777 (2008)(“A judge, faced with a heavy case load, may adopt written work developed by the parties to the case when writing the decision or taking other action related to the case. A judge may ask the prevailing attorney to draft an order for the judge’s signature, may use portions of court documents submitted by the attorneys in the case, or may have a law clerk write the first draft or even most of the final opinion. This practice is widespread and allows cases to be decided more expeditiously.” Id. at 800-801.).
5 See, e.g., In re Community Bank of Northern Virginia, 418 F. 3d 277 (3rd Cir. 2005)(“In the context of meeting the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b), we are not satisfied that the bare statement that the “proposed findings and conclusions are fully supported in the record” meets the minimum standard of accepting verbatim adoption as contemplated in the teachings of Anderson, 470 U.S. at 572, 105 S.Ct. 1504. We believe that a court must set forth persuasive reasons, stated with objectivity, why the submissions of counsel totally reflect the independent judgment of the court. The act of accepting as its own these critical suggestions is an important judicial conclusion whose acceptability is merited only to the extent that sound reason stated publicly supports the acceptance. Because we are not convinced that the District Court exercised “independent judgment” in adopting the proposed findings of the settling parties, we conclude that the settlement-only class was never properly certified in accordance with Amchem. “[W]ithout certification there is no class action, and in a settlement entered without class certification the judgment will not have res judicata effect on the claims of absent class members.” G.M. Trucks, 55 F.3d at 800 (internal citation, quotations, and alterations omitted). We will therefore vacate the settlement Order and remand to the District Court.” Id. at 301-302 (footnotes omitted).).
6 See generally J. A. Bryant, Jr., Propriety and Effect of Trial Court’s Adoption of Findings Prepared by Prevailing Party, 54 A.L.R.3d 868 (1973).
7 See court decisions and law reviews cited infra. See also Douglas R. Richmond, Unoriginal Sin: The Problem of Judicial Plagiarism, 45 Ariz. St. L.J. 1077 (2013)(After a thorough and thoughtful analysis of judicial decision-making and the legal and ethical pitfalls of verbatim copying, Mr. Richmond offered these detailed guidelines for evaluating “independent judgment”: “In determining whether a court exercised independent judgment, a reviewing court should consider (1) the time between the submission of the document adopted or copied and the issuance of the offending opinion, order, conclusions of law, or findings of fact, with a longer time generally suggesting that the judge independently analyzed the issues; (2) the extent of the judge’s adoption or copying, with no mathematical formula or quota for evaluating replication required; (3) whether the challenged text is supported by appropriate citations to the record or appropriate legal authority; (4) the accuracy of any proposed findings of fact when compared to the record; (5) whether cited legal authority is apposite; (6) whether competing cases are cited, discussed, or distinguished; (7) whether the court heard arguments before ruling; (9) the tenor of the challenged opinion or order, i.e., whether it reads like an advocacy piece or whether it appears to be balanced; (10) whether the challenged opinion or order contains errors or misstatements found in the document from which the judge copied or which the judge adopted, with the replication of errors or misstatements indicating a lack of independent review; (11) whether the case involves difficult scientific concepts or issues of a highly technical nature, such that the court might reasonably be expected to need the parties’ assistance in describing or explaining them in its decision or findings; (12) whether both parties were invited to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law or orders; and (13) any other factor that either reasonably indicates the court’s exercise of independent judgment or that reasonably negates that conclusion or materially diminishes its likelihood.” Id. at 1101-1102 (footnotes omitted).).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.