via
Getty)
Many
practicing
lawyers
know
all
too
well
that
courts
are
often
overburdened
with
busy
dockets
and
insufficient
resources
to
handle
all
of
the
tasks
associated
with
judicial
matters. This
can
lead
to
mistakes
since
courts
often
need
to
decide
upon
numerous
motions,
applications,
and
other
types
of
requests
at
a
single
time,
and
court
administrators
often
hold
judges
to
difficult
standards
about
resolving
matters
in
a
timely
fashion. In
order
to
streamline
the
judicial
process
and
save
resources,
more
courts
should
require
litigants
to
submit
proposed
orders
when
they
file
motions.
Judges
make
all
kinds
of
mistakes
when
it
comes
to
deciding
motions. Sometimes,
judges
fail
to
grant
the
precise
relief
requested
in
a
motion,
presumably
since
they
did
not
closely
read
the
papers
and
did
not
include
language
necessary
to
resolve
a
given
issue. At
other
times,
judges
might
draft
an
order
that
contains
ambiguities
which
require
follow-up
action
by
litigants
and
court
staff. In
other
recent
examples,
judges
might
use
artificial
intelligence
to
draft
opinions
that
might
contain
fabricated
authorities. These
types
of
errors
may
be
reduced
if
judges
commonly
receive
proposed
orders
from
litigants.
One
of
the
jurisdictions
in
which
I
practice
requires
litigants
to
file
a
proposed
order
whenever
they
file
a
motion. The
proposed
order
must
be
uploaded
in
a
Word
format
so
that
judges
can
make
edits
to
the
document
before
it
is
signed
and
entered. When
a
litigant
uploads
a
proposed
order,
it
includes
the
exact
relief
that
is
requested
and
any
follow-up
deadlines
or
other
ancillary
matters
that
are
attendant
to
the
relief
a
litigant
is
seeking. In
addition,
a
proposed
order
includes
all
of
the
rote
language
that
needs
to
be
included
in
a
given
order.
In
most
instances,
when
a
litigant
wins
a
motion,
the
court
does
not
act
as
a
“rubber
stamp”
since
judges
routinely
make
changes
to
proposed
orders
before
entering
them. Courts
often
make
changes
to
the
orders
to
reflect
some
of
the
reasoning
that
was
presented
by
the
party
opposing
the
motion
or
to
limit
the
extent
of
the
relief
sought
by
a
party
in
a
proposed
order. In
some
instances,
the
court
includes
some
of
its
own
reasoning
within
the
language
of
the
order
provided
by
the
movant.
Obviously,
proposed
orders
are
more
useful
for
some
types
of
cases
rather
than
others. For
instance,
a
proposed
order
might
be
less
useful
when
deciding
a
dispositive
motion
since
the
court
often
needs
to
provide
its
reasoning
when
coming
to
a
position,
and
the
outcome
might
be
more
nuanced
than
the
resolution
contained
in
a
proposed
order. Moreover,
sometimes
a
court
wishes
to
decide
a
matter
in
a
nonbinary
manner
that
does
not
in
any
way
resemble
the
outcome
envisaged
by
a
proposed
matter.
However,
the
vast
majority
of
motions
are
routine
and
usually
have
an
expected
outcome. For
instance,
motions
to
amend
a
pleading
are
often
granted,
so
it
might
make
sense
for
a
court
to
simply
sign
a
proposed
order
that
includes
deadlines
associated
with
the
proposed
amendment. Moreover,
motions
to
compel
discovery
are
also
frequently
granted
and
can
be
decided
by
a
simple
order
that
includes
a
discovery
schedule. In
such
instances,
courts
could
save
considerable
resources
by
having
parties
upload
proposed
orders
that
include
the
expected
language
litigants
seek.
Of
course,
courts
often
need
to
change
proposed
orders,
and
view
them
skeptically
since
a
party
will
always
try
to
include
language
that
is
most
favorable
to
that
party’s
position
in
a
case. However,
in
many
instances,
proposed
orders
can
be
helpful
to
courts
and
can
potentially
save
courts
judicial
resources
that
can
be
spent
on
other
tasks.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.