One problem discussed is supersession:
The Rules Advisory Committee has addressed this contingency in the new version of Rule 86(b), which expressly states that for supersession purposes, the effective date of re-styled Rules shall be the date of the last substantive change to that amendment. However, it is not clear that a federal Rule can change its effective date by fiat. The Supersession Clause of the Rules Enabling Act makes supersession turn on the date that a Rule takes effect, not the date that a Rule says it should be deemed to take effect. And in a conflict between the Rules Enabling Act and the Federal Rules, the Enabling Act prevails, because the supersession clause does not (and logically cannot) apply to itself.
I find the other problem more interesting: the confusion caused by simplification. As I get older, I find myself less and less amenable to change. Therefore, this part of the article attracts me. The author puts the problem as:
But if the re-styling project will not create supersession problems, it may nonetheless lead to confusion. What happens when circumstances arise in which the meaning of a re-styled Rule appears to conflict with the meaning of the old version of the Rule?A bit far afield from much I write about on this blog but I think the whole article worth going back and reading in full.
0 comments:
Post a comment on: For my fellow lawyers - federal rules