SCOGGIN v. SCOGGIN is the case that lets a judge change his mind after the oral rendition. Whatever the trial judge said in court matters not: the written order can be completely different.
This spurred a debate among lawyers.
The Debate
“A great rule!” said some lawyers. “If your judge, upon studied reflection, sees that his oral ruling was wrong, he will correct himself. Surely, in the end, you’d rather have the best decision possible. Why should a judge be stuck with a rendition that he realizes was wrong?!”
“Because this leads to uncertainty,” objected other lawyers. “In the olden days, if the trial judge was wrong, at least we could start the appeal immediately. Now we’ll be forced to follow the oral order indefinitely—who knows when the written order will be ever written. Uncertainty is bad.”
This is not a new debate. The legal process always has to balance the conflicting needs of “best” versus “final and certain.” Most of the time, it is the sort of tension that can not be eased. But this time, there is actually an easy fix. And what’s even better, the fix follows the mandate of Scoggin.
The Solution
The Court of Appeals in Scoggin reminded that oral renditions are not orders. Still, the practice of treating oral renditions as though they are orders persists among the trial lawyers and the trial courts, notwithstanding the Court of Appeals’ admonitions against it.
What if the trial judges prefaced every “oral ruling” with a short explanation of what the “oral ruling” really is: the judge’s current thoughts on how the judge might rule eventually, when he signs the written order. This simple instruction by a trial judge would bring the court in compliance with Appellate court rule in Scoggin:
I will now read into the record my preliminary thoughts on how I might rule. The law allows me to change my mind completely or partially before I sign the written order. After additional review of the file and the law, I might, in fact, do so. Until you receive a written order signed by me and stamped by the clerk, you must continue to follow whatever arrangements or orders are already in place.
What do you think?
Meanwhile, for more on oral orders, read my posts here and here and N.C. Lawyers’ Weekly here and again here.