The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure governing brief length are critical for judges and lawyers. Yet while they appear simple on their face, they can be deceptively complex. That is especially true in appeals involving multiple issues or parties. Regardless, counsel should streamline their briefs wherever possible. Doing so not only aids the work of the courts, but also helps represent clients most effectively.
Appellate Word Limits
Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a principal brief may not exceed 30 pages, and a reply brief may not exceed 15 pages. When briefs were produced on typewriters, the limit for a principal brief was 50, but computers made it possible for lawyers to cram ever more words per page, making a 50-page limit “virtually meaningless.” Fed. R. App. Proc. 32 (Advisory Committee’s Note 1998).
Alternatively, the rules permit counsel to limit briefs to a reasonable number of words, with principal and reply briefs containing 13,000 and 6,500 words respectively. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 32(a)(7), (f). These limits are based on an estimate of 260 words per page, or 50 and 25 pages respectively. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 32 (Advisory Committee’s Note 2016). Briefs are subject to local rules, which may impose different limits. See, e.g., 9th Cir. Rule 32-1 (14,000 words).
Word limits can be challenging. Appellate counsel speak to courts primarily through the written word, and as oral-argument time “is increasingly whittled away, the significance of [each] brief becomes even more apparent.” Hon. Lawrence W. Pierce, “Appellate Advocacy: Some Reflections from the Bench,” 61 Fordham L. Rev. 829, 834 (1993). Moreover, counsel must take care to make and develop their arguments. As the Seventh Circuit has explained, a “skeletal ‘argument,’ really nothing more than assertion, does not preserve a claim… . Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” U.S. v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991).
Word limits also are sensible. “The appellate court has a finite and quite limited amount of time to spend on one case.” Hon. James L. Robertson, “From the Bench: Reality on Appeal,” 17 No.1 Litig. 3, 5 (1990). The average person reads a few hundred words per minute, but legal writing is especially dense. See, e.g., Brett Nelson, “Do You Read Fast Enough to Be Successful?” Forbes June 4, 2012. Court reporters may dictate 200 or more words per minute, but judges seek to process, digest, and analyze while reading. See, e.g., National Court Reporters Association, Registered Professional Reporter.
Estimating 260 words per minute, at 260 words per page, yields about one brief per hour, and even that can be a slog. See Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, “Remarks on Appellate Advocacy,” 50 S.C.L. Rev. 567, 568 (1999) (“As [Chief Judge Wald of the D.C. Circuit] once commented: eye fatigue, even irritability, sets in well before fifty” pages.); Hon. Robert R. Baldock, Hon. Carlos F. Lucero, & Hon. Vicki Mandell-King, “What Appellate Advocates Seek from Appellate Judges and What Appellate Judges Seek from Appellate Advocates: Panel Two,” 31 N.M. L. Rev. 265, 269 (“I detest briefs that are sixty-four pages where every word counting rule has been bent.”).
Moreover, appellate judges can read hundreds if not thousands of briefs per year, plus appendices, cases, statutes, and other materials. See, e.g., Baldock et al., supra, at 269 (estimating reading 72 briefs, or 3,000 pages, per week of argument). Thus, even if appellate judges skim parts of some briefs and rely on law clerks’ summaries and memoranda, “you’ll rarely if ever hear judges complain that sentences or briefs are too short.” Ross Guberman, “What Judges Long for When They Read,” 51 No. 4 Litig. (2025).
Word Limits in Complex Appeals
Word limits are not always straightforward, especially in complex appeals. If two or more parties are entitled to appeal, they may file a joint notice of appeal and proceed as a single appellant. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 3(b)(1). This means they “file a single brief” of 13,000 words and reply of 6,500 words. Wright & Miller, 16A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3949.2 (5th ed. 2026).
Multiple appellants may have different interests, however, or may be represented by separate counsel. In that case, they may seek to litigate their appeals separately. To be sure, parties or the court may seek to consolidate such appeals “for the sake of efficiency and to promote consistent treatment.” Id.; see Fed. R. App. Proc. 3(b)(2). But consolidated appeals “do not merge into one” and do not proceed as a single unit. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 3 (Advisory Committee’s Note 1998). Instead, they are handled together procedurally, typically for scheduling briefing, oral argument, and disposition. This means each appellant brief retains its 13,000 and 6,500 limits. Appellees, too, can complicate these issues. For example, where multiple parties prevail in the district court, each may become an appellee as well, entitled to file its own brief defending the judgment.
Words and pages can quickly multiply. Standard appeals require a principal brief of 13,000 words, a response brief of 13,000 words, and a reply brief of 6,500 words—32,500 words—but complex appeals may require far more. Consider a judgment against two plaintiffs that results in two appeals against five defendants. That’s 169,000 words, or 650 pages (19,500 in principal and reply briefs; 13,000 in five response briefs—for each of two appeals). Now consider a judgment in favor of the two plaintiffs—227,500 words, or 874 pages (19,500 in principal and reply briefs; 13,000 in two response briefs—for each of five appeals). Hundreds of thousands of words—oh my!
Furthermore, complex cases often have cross-appeals, which can mean more briefing. In a standard case with a cross-appeal, the appellant’s principal brief may contain 13,000 words, the appellee’s principal and response brief may contain 15,300 words, the appellant’s response and reply brief may contain 13,000 words, and the appellee’s reply brief may contain 6,500 words. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 28.1(e). That is 47,800 words. But imagine cases with numerous parties.
Courts of appeals also may accept briefs that do not meet the “length limits set by [the] rules.” Fed. R. App. Proc. 32(e). The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules notes that in a “complex” case, a party may need to file an oversized brief to “respond to multiple briefs by opposing parties or amici” or to include “unusually voluminous information explaining relevant background or legal provisions” and that it “expects that courts will accommodate” that need by granting motions in “appropriate” situations. Fed. R. App. Proc. 32 (Advisory Committee’s Note 2016).
Joining or Adopting Other Appellate Briefs
Fortunately, the rules provide a means for streamlining briefing as well. Rule 28(i) provides that “[i]n a case involving more than one appellant or appellee, including consolidated cases, any number of appellants or appellees may join in a brief, and any party may adopt by reference a part of another’s brief.” This “is a sensible attempt to eliminate needless repetition of arguments, while preserving the right of every party to the appeal to present those arguments that concern that party alone or that are not made by the other parties.” Wright & Miller, supra, § 3974.5.
Rule 28(i) does not limit how a party may adopt part of another’s brief, but courts permit a number of approaches, such as by letter, motion, or reference in a brief. See, e.g., In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 885 F.3d 913, 915 (8th Cir. 2017); id. at 918 (Shepherd, J., dissenting); U.S. v. Gonzalez, 322 F. App’x 963, 968 n.3 (11th Cir. 2009). In doing so, the parties and the court benefit from significant “efficiency” gained through eliminated duplication. U.S. v. Elder, 90 F.3d 1110, 1118 (6th Cir. 1996); see, e.g., U.S. v. Salerno, 937 F.2d 797, 803 (2d Cir. 1991) (praising the parties’ “fine briefing” in which seven of eight appellants presented separate arguments yet adopted by reference points raised in the others’ briefs, while the government “responded with a 300-page typeset brief, addressing the sixteen arguments point-by-point”), rev’d on other grounds, 505 U.S. 317 (1992).
All is not so simple, however. Consider a 13,000 word brief that proposes to “incorporate” another 13,000 word brief. Presto—26,000 words!? Not exactly. Courts permit parties to incorporate by reference only specific arguments that are identified and apply to their case. See, e.g., U.S. v. Simon, 12 F.4th 1, 22 n.4 (1st Cir. 2021). Adoption by reference “may streamline the appeal of common legal issues,” but “it threatens to confuse those issues that litigants do not share.” U.S. v. Striker, 800 F.3d 570, 589 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). As a result, courts will not “scour the record” to determine which arguments are intended to be incorporated. U.S. v. Scarfo, 41 F.4th 136, 167 n.19 (3d Cir. 2022). And arguments that are “fact-specific” generally cannot be adopted. See, e.g., U.S. v. Age, 136 F.4th 193, 213 n.5 (5th Cir. 2025).
As for word limits, the Federal Circuit has held that “incorporated material counts against the litigants’ word count in exactly the same manner as if it had been expressly included in the brief.” Microsoft Corp. v. DataTern, Inc., 755 F.3d 899, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). The court reasons that it would be “fundamentally unfair” to use incorporation to exceed word limits. Id.; see, e.g., V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, 2025 WL 1675474, at *1 (Fed. Cir. June 13, 2025). Under such a view, Rule 28(i) should not be used as an “end-run[]” around word limits by expanding the length of arguments advanced in an appeal. See Target, 855 F.3d at 918–19 (Shepherd, J., dissenting); see also Barone v. Sanitation Dist. No. 1, 2020 WL 260666, at *4 (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2020) (reminding litigants “that the purpose of consolidation and co-party briefing is to advance the convenience of the Court and the parties, and to avoid unnecessary expense or delay”). Indeed, courts disallow attempts to adopt by reference arguments made in briefs filed in the court below or in non-consolidated appeals, in part because “such attempts would permit circumvention of the page limits on appellate briefs.” Wright & Miller, supra, § 3974.5.
On the other hand, the Tenth and Eighth Circuits have held that “‘[t]he Rules impose no limit on the volume of words one party may adopt’” under Federal Rule 28(i). U.S. v. Butler, 141 F.4th 1136, 1149 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting Target, 885 F.3d at 916–17). Such courts explain that “adoption of briefs will generally not cause the problems that word limits are designed to avoid, since courts and parties already have to read and respond to the briefs being adopted.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Indeed, Rule 32 places word limits only on principal and reply briefs; so long as the party otherwise complies with those limits, “adopting” additional arguments that the court and parties must read anyway does not expand their required work. See Target, 855 F.3d at 917. Moreover, those courts note that the Federal Circuit rule arose from adoption in separate appeals that were not formally consolidated, where the same considerations may not apply.
Appellate Advocacy
Regardless, counsel should seek to use the fewest amount of words that are necessary to do the job. Counsel should employ “painstaking craftsmanship” in pruning arguments (Hon. Ruggero J. Aldisert, “The Appellate Bar: Professional Responsibility and Professional Competence—A View from the Jaundiced Eye of One Appellate Judge,” 446 Cap. U. L. Rev. 445, 456 (1982)) and exercise “discretion and objective detachment in deciding which . . . issues will be raised on appeal.” (Hon. D. Franklin Arey III, “Competent Appellate Advocacy and Continuing Legal Education: Fitting the Means to the End,” 2 J. Appell. Prac. & Process 27, 35–37 (2000)).
Of course, counsel should use enough words to make their arguments persuasively. “Asking attorneys to highlight the meat and potatoes of the case [] does not mean that the spices included in the entrée … should be taken off the menu. But it does suggest that serving eight different vegetables will detract from the main course.” Pierce, supra, at 836 (quotation marks omitted). It takes far less effort and skill to draft a verbose brief than it does to draft one that is clear, concise, and persuasive. But that is part of the secret sauce of effective appellate advocacy.
In some cases, it may make sense to seek a court order regarding the number or lengths of briefs, and potentially a consent or stipulation from opposing counsel. “The cardinal rule” is that counsel should “play to the audience—in federal courts of appeals, three busy judges… .The best way to lose that audience is to write the brief long and cluttered.” Ginsberg, supra, at 568; see, e.g., Baldock, Lucero, & Mandell-King, supra, at 269 (Lawyers who use more words than necessary “are annoying the judge and putting him in a bad state of mind.”). But in cases where exceeding a word limit may be appropriate, especially where it might eliminate duplication, courts benefit from practical solutions, and it may be prudent to involve them in the process.
© 2026 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
