Attorneys should favor their substantive arguments over their procedural arguments.
• Procedural Justice refers to the process used to decide an issue.
• Substantive Justice refers to the merits of the case.
Judges will generally give more weight to substantive justice than procedural justice, as judges like to adjudicate cases on the merits. This makes sense as the purpose of procedure is generally to reach the merits of a case in a fair way. Most the time judges will not penalize you for making a procedural mistake unless the other party is prejudiced. Although some rules have strict compliance requirement like the statute of limitations. Although not deciding an issue timely could be considered prejudicial, as the statute of limitations give you plenty of time to bring your cause of action.
The best way to win on a procedural argument
is to make it a substantive argument.
Usually sanctions such as dismissal or exclusion of evidence are considered to be extreme sanctions, and judges will generally look for other remedies to cure any prejudice such as a continuance. If a judge believes the violation would substantially prejudice opposing counsel through way of surprise, and would prevent the non-violating party from being prepared at trial or create an undue delay the courts will consider appropriate sanctions. Courts are also likely to consider a sanction if they believe the violation was willful.
