Appellate Brief Word Limits Compared: California 14,000, New York 14,000, Federal 13,000

Short answer: California caps a computer-produced Court of Appeal brief at 14,000 words, New York caps an Appellate Division principal brief at 14,000 words, and FRAP 32(a)(7)(B) caps a federal principal brief at 13,000 words.

Those numbers are close enough that practitioners assume one brief travels. It does not. The systems differ on what counts toward the limit, on how much room a reply gets, and on whether the circuit you are filing in has expanded the federal figure back to 14,000. Below is the operative text of each provision plus the certificate each system requires.

What is the word limit for a California appellate brief?

California Rule of Court 8.204(c)(1): “Except as provided in (5), a brief produced on a computer must not exceed 14,000 words, including footnotes.” The same subdivision requires the brief to include a certificate stating the number of words, and permits the person certifying to rely on the word count of the computer program used to prepare the brief. Rule 8.204 was amended effective January 1, 2024.

Three features of the California rule are easy to miss. First, the 14,000-word cap attaches to “a brief,” with one carve-out in (c)(5) for rehearing papers. The rule text sets no lower figure for a reply, so a California reply brief has the same ceiling as the opening brief. Second, footnotes are inside the count by express terms. Third, the exclusions in (c)(3) are narrow: “The tables required under (a)(1), the cover information required under (b)(10), the Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons required under rule 8.208, a certificate under (1), any signature block, and any attachment under (d) are excluded from the limits stated in (1) or (2).”

Criminal appeals run on a different scale entirely. Rule 8.360(b)(1) provides that “A brief produced on a computer must not exceed 25,500 words, including footnotes.”

What is the word limit for an Appellate Division brief in New York?

22 NYCRR 1250.8(f) is statewide across all four Departments: “Computer-generated appellants’ and respondents’ briefs shall not exceed 14,000 words, and reply and amicus curiae briefs shall not exceed 7,000 words, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and exclusive of signature blocks and pages including the table of contents, table of citations, proof of service, certificate of compliance, or any addendum authorized pursuant to subdivision (k).”

That clause is the most precisely drafted of the three. Point headings count. Footnotes count. Signature blocks do not. And the New York reply ceiling is half the principal ceiling, which is the first place a California practitioner coming east loses 7,000 words without noticing.

Subdivision (f) also fixes the typeface: the body of a proportionally spaced brief “shall be printed in 14-point type, but footnotes may be printed in type of no less than 12 points.”

What is the federal word limit under FRAP 32?

FRAP 32(a)(7)(A) sets the page track: “A principal brief may not exceed 30 pages, or a reply brief 15 pages, unless it complies with Rule 32(a)(7)(B).” The type-volume track in 32(a)(7)(B) is the one nearly everyone uses. A principal brief is acceptable if it “contains no more than 13,000 words; or uses a monospaced face and contains no more than 1,300 lines of text.” A reply brief must contain “no more than half of the type volume specified in Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(i),” which is 6,500 words.

Cross-appeals run on FRAP 28.1(e) instead, and the figures are not the same. The appellee’s principal and response brief gets 15,300 words or 1,500 monospaced lines; the appellant’s principal and its response-and-reply brief get 13,000 each; the appellee’s reply gets 6,500.

Why does the Second Circuit allow 14,000 words when FRAP says 13,000?

Because FRAP 32(e) lets it. The subdivision reads: “Every court of appeals must accept documents that comply with the form requirements of this rule and the length limits set by these rules. By local rule or order in a particular case, a court of appeals may accept documents that do not meet all the form requirements of this rule or the length limits set by these rules.”

Two circuits that matter to a California or New York litigation practice have used that authority to keep the pre-2016 figure. Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1(a)(4) states: “Principal brief. A principal brief is acceptable if it contains no more than 14,000 words” and “Reply brief. A reply brief is acceptable if it contains no more than 7,000 words.” Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1(a) states: “The opening and answering briefs filed by appellant and appellee, respectively, may not exceed 14,000 words,” with subdivision (b) capping the reply at half that length.

The practical consequence: 13,000 is the floor you can rely on anywhere, and 14,000 is available only where you have read the local rule and confirmed it. Do not carry a Ninth Circuit habit into a circuit you have not checked.

Rule table

Filing	Limit	Operative language	Source
CA Court of Appeal brief, computer	14,000 words	“a brief produced on a computer must not exceed 14,000 words, including footnotes”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(c)(1)
CA brief, typewriter	50 pages	“a brief produced on a typewriter must not exceed 50 pages”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(c)(2)
CA combined brief, rule 8.216 appeal	28,000 words	“must not exceed double the limits stated in (1) or (2)”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(c)(4)
CA rehearing petition or answer	7,000 words	“A petition for rehearing or an answer to a petition for rehearing produced on a computer must not exceed 7,000 words, including footnotes.”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(c)(5)
CA criminal appeal brief	25,500 words	“A brief produced on a computer must not exceed 25,500 words, including footnotes.”	Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.360(b)(1)
NY Appellate Division principal brief	14,000 words	“Computer-generated appellants’ and respondents’ briefs shall not exceed 14,000 words”	22 NYCRR 1250.8(f)
NY reply or amicus brief	7,000 words	“reply and amicus curiae briefs shall not exceed 7,000 words”	22 NYCRR 1250.8(f)
NY typewritten briefs	50 / 25 pages	“Typewritten appellants’ and respondents’ briefs shall not exceed 50 pages and reply briefs and amicus curiae briefs shall not exceed 25 pages”	22 NYCRR 1250.8(g)
Federal principal brief	13,000 words	“contains no more than 13,000 words; or uses a monospaced face and contains no more than 1,300 lines of text”	FRAP 32(a)(7)(B)
Federal reply brief	6,500 words	“no more than half of the type volume specified in Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(i)”	FRAP 32(a)(7)(B)(ii)
Federal cross-appeal, appellee principal and response	15,300 words	“contains no more than 15,300 words”	FRAP 28.1(e)(2)(B)
Second Circuit principal / reply	14,000 / 7,000 words	“A principal brief is acceptable if it contains no more than 14,000 words”	2d Cir. Local Rule 32.1(a)(4)
Ninth Circuit opening and answering	14,000 words	“The opening and answering briefs filed by appellant and appellee, respectively, may not exceed 14,000 words”	9th Cir. R. 32-1(a)

Drafting-ready certificates for all three systems

Each system requires a different closing document. Adapt the bracketed material and place each at the end of the brief.

California, rule 8.204(c)(1) certificate of word count

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(c)(1), I certify that the attached [APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF], including footnotes and excluding the materials identified in rule 8.204(c)(3), contains [NUMBER] words. In making this certification, I have relied on the word count of the computer program used to prepare this brief.

Dated: [DATE]

_______________________________
[COUNSEL], Counsel for [PARTY]

New York, 22 NYCRR 1250.8(j) printing specifications statement

PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS STATEMENT

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.8(j), the foregoing brief was prepared on a computer.

Typeface: [Times New Roman], a serifed, proportionally spaced typeface.
Point size: 14 point body text; footnotes [12] point.
Line spacing: [double].
Word count: [NUMBER] words, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and exclusive of signature blocks and the pages containing the table of contents, table of citations, proof of service, certificate of compliance, and any addendum authorized under 22 NYCRR 1250.8(k).

Dated: [DATE]

_______________________________
[COUNSEL], Attorney for [PARTY]

Federal, FRAP 32(g)(1) certificate of compliance

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

1. This document complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. [32(a)(7)(B) / 28.1(e)(2)] [and [Circuit] Rule [NUMBER]] because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), it contains [NUMBER] words.

2. This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using [WORD PROCESSOR] in [14]-point [Times New Roman].

In preparing this certificate I relied on the word count of the word-processing system used to prepare the document.

Dated: [DATE]

_______________________________
[COUNSEL], Counsel for [PARTY]

Worked example: moving one brief across three systems

Take a California appellant’s opening brief that certifies at exactly 14,000 words under rule 8.204(c)(1), of which 1,150 words sit in footnotes.

To the Second Circuit. No cut. Local Rule 32.1(a)(4) permits 14,000 words. But FRAP 32(f) excludes a different set of components than rule 8.204(c)(3), including an addendum containing statutes, rules, or regulations. Moving statutory text into that addendum is a legitimate federal reduction with no California analogue in the same form.

To a circuit with no local expansion. The ceiling is 13,000 under FRAP 32(a)(7)(B)(i). That is a cut of 1,000 words, or 7.1 percent of the brief. On a 14,000-word brief with 1,150 words of footnotes, converting half the footnote material into an addendum-plus-record-citation approach gets most of the way there before a single argument paragraph is touched.

The reply is where the real gap sits. California gives the reply the same 14,000 words as the opening brief. New York gives it 7,000 under 1250.8(f). Federal gives it 6,500 under 32(a)(7)(B)(ii). A practitioner who drafts a 14,000-word California reply and then files the equivalent federally must cut 7,500 words, or 53.6 percent. That is not an editing pass. That is a different brief, and it has to be scoped as one from the start.

Where the three systems actually diverge

Footnotes. All three count them. California says “including footnotes” in 8.204(c)(1); New York says “inclusive of point headings and footnotes” in 1250.8(f); FRAP 32(f) lists no footnote exclusion. There is no footnote arbitrage in any of these systems.

Exclusions. FRAP 32(f) excludes the cover page, disclosure statement, table of contents, table of citations, statement regarding oral argument, addendum of statutes, rules, or regulations, certificate of counsel, signature block, proof of service, and anything excluded by local rule. California’s 8.204(c)(3) list is shorter. New York’s list in 1250.8(f) is shorter still and is drafted by pages rather than by components.

The closing document. California wants a certificate of word count. Federal wants a FRAP 32(g)(1) certificate of compliance that also addresses typeface and type style. New York wants a printing specifications statement that names the typeface, point size, line spacing, and word count. These are not interchangeable, and substituting one for another is a visible error to a clerk.

Pre-filing checklist

• Confirm which system’s limit governs: 14,000 in a California Court of Appeal civil appeal, 25,500 in a California criminal appeal, 14,000 in the Appellate Division, 13,000 federally unless a local rule says otherwise.
• If the appeal is a cross-appeal in federal court, run FRAP 28.1(e), not FRAP 32(a)(7). The appellee’s principal and response brief gets 15,300 words.
• Read the circuit’s local rule before relying on 14,000. Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1(a)(4) and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1(a) permit it; FRAP 32(e) is the authority that allows the variation.
• Confirm the reply ceiling separately. It is 14,000 in California, 7,000 in New York, 6,500 federally.
• Run the word count with the exclusions your system actually recognizes, not the ones you are used to.
• Attach the right closing document: rule 8.204(c)(1) certificate, 1250.8(j) printing specifications statement, or FRAP 32(g)(1) certificate of compliance.
• In California, verify every record reference against rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), which requires a citation to “the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.”
• Check the assigned court’s standing orders. Local and individual requirements sit on top of these rules, not instead of them.

Appellate brief drafting across jurisdictions

The brief that has to exist in two systems is the expensive one. A 6,500-word federal reply built from a 14,000-word state reply has to be structured for that ceiling before the first draft, not trimmed into it afterward. LegalBriefsUSA drafts appellate briefs to the operative limit in California, New York, and the federal circuits, including the certificate or printing specifications statement each court requires. If you are carrying an argument from a state appellate court into a federal one and the word budget is the problem, send us the existing brief and the target court.

Related reading: appellate brief writing for California attorneys, the CCP 1005 motion deadline count, California’s 81/20/11 summary judgment deadlines, and how white-label drafting works between firms.

Authorities cited

California Rules of Court, rule 8.204, subdivisions (a)(1)(C), (b)(10), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5), and rule 8.360(b)(1) and (b)(2), read at courts.ca.gov and courts.ca.gov; 22 NYCRR 1250.8, subdivisions (f), (g), and (j), read at law.cornell.edu and confirmed against the Practice Rules of the Appellate Division published at nycourts.gov; Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7), 32(e), 32(f), and 32(g)(1), and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.1(e), read at law.cornell.edu and law.cornell.edu; Second Circuit Local Rule 32.1(a)(4), read at ca2.uscourts.gov; Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1(a) and (b), read in the court’s own adopted rules document at cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov. Each authority above was verified against a primary source on the publication date of this article. Two points were deliberately left out for lack of verification today: the text of Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1 in the court’s consolidated December 1, 2025 rules edition, which did not return the rule page on retrieval, so confirm that figure against the current edition before relying on 14,000 in the Ninth Circuit; and any word or page limit imposed by an individual circuit judge’s standing order, none of which was retrieved. No case law is cited in this article.

LegalBriefsUSA.com provides drafting and research support to licensed attorneys and law firms. This article is written for attorneys, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.