Appellants first allege that ___'s brief violates M.R.A.P. 32(a) because of the use of single spacing in the body of the brief. ___ agress that the rule requires "double spacing between each line of text, excluding quotations and footnotes," but in the discretion of ___'s counsel, single-spaced text was used in parts of the brief because of counsel's opinion that these parts were easier to read and process in this format.(Boldfacing added.)
The majority of ___'s brief is double-spaced, and ___ used single-spacing in some part of the brief to emphasize or draw attention to certain points.
Ah yes, the well-known "discretion of counsel" exception to court rules! Almost as well known as the use of single-spacing to increase readability or provide emphasis.
... The court refused to strike the brief in question or afford any other relief (such as resubmitting it in rule-compliant format), so I guess the rules *are* merely advisory.