French mathematician Blaise Pascal once apologized to the recipient of his letter for its length by saying “I did not have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one.” It was Mark Twain who said, “If you want me to give you a two-hour presentation, I am ready today. If you want only a five-minute speech, it will take me two weeks to prepare.” 

They were trying to say how difficult it is to write short but precise statements. Interestingly, this very statement of Twain was quoted by a U.S. federal court judge who disagreed to join the majority opinion of the court and instead issued his own “concurring” opinion ― meaning that he agrees to the conclusion but does not share the rationale. And it was purely about the length of the decision.

In a recent judgment rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, where it upheld a murder conviction from the district court, one judge “concurred” only, although he agrees to the final decision of the court, because he, citing Mark Twain’s advice, viewed the 105-page decision of the court as unnecessarily long.

To quote some of the opinions of the judge, Judge James Edmondson: “I ― very respectfully ― do not join in the majority’ erudite opinion… I stress that it is not because the opinion says something that I am sure is wrong or I am sure is even likely wrong…But the opinion says a lot and says more than I think is absolutely needed.” He then explains why the interest of the court and the general public would not be served by unnecessarily wordy judgments which increase the possibility of inadvertent errors, cherry-picking citation by interest groups in future court proceedings and blurred core points, let alone the painful reading.

This 105-page decision would pale in comparison to the 480-page decision issued in January by Seoul Central District Court in a criminal proceeding against a CEO of a large business group. Or the 182-page decision that was rendered in January 2012 in yet another proceeding involving a well-known election bribery case.

Reading a document of this magnitude is almost the same as reading a book. Days may be needed before even the parties understand and digest the decision. An obvious trend is that the length of the judgments tends to get longer, in particular in high profile cases. Of course, this is in part because the case itself is complex and because the presiding judge is apparently touching all bases so that the judgment is not overturned on appeal. But the said Twainian advice has been getting more support, especially from younger people.

In response to this reaction, in early July the Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court issued an internal guideline, to be effective as of September, to screen the voluminous court decision phenomenon and foster succinct and concise judgments.

This is a move that should be welcomed by many. In fact, this is also necessary as the judgments of trial courts are going to be uploaded to the website starting from 2015, where all watchful eyes will easily scrutinize the ins and outs of any decision. With the fast emergence of digital communication in Korea where all sorts of shortest expressions available are preferred, the judiciary’s effort to keep up with the changing nature of the society and adjust a bit the way court judgments are formulated is indeed appropriate and important.

In fact, this is not the first time and similar efforts have been made on-and-off since 1991, with only few changes, if any. But the new attempt of this time is certainly getting off to a good start. It is true that sometimes legalese is necessary and lengthy discussions required. But in other times, according to the Seoul Central District Court, shorter decisions may serve the purpose. 

By Lee Jae-min

Lee Jae-min is a professor of law at the School of Law at Hanyang University. Formerly he practiced law as an associate attorney with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. ― Ed.