Short answer. Where there are several appellants or appellees, each counsel representing some but not all of them gets only one copy of the briefs. When several counsel jointly represent a single appellant or appellee, copies may be served on any one of them.
What the law says
Where there are several appellants or appellees, each counsel representing one or more but not all of them shall be served with only one copy of the briefs.
Rule 44, Section 11 — Several appellants or appellees or several counsel for each party. Read the full provision →
What the law says
When several counsel represent one appellant or appellee, copies of the brief may be served upon any of them.
Rule 44, Section 11 — Several appellants or appellees or several counsel for each party. Read the full provision →
One copy per counsel representing a subset
Multi-party appeals raise a service question Rule 44 answers directly. Section 11 states that where there are several appellants or appellees, each counsel representing one or more but not all of them shall be served with only one copy of the briefs. A lawyer handling three of five appellants still gets just one copy, not three, regardless of how many of the parties on that side that counsel actually represents.
Multiple counsel for a single party
The rule addresses the reverse situation too — one party represented by several lawyers. When several counsel represent one appellant or appellee, copies of the brief may be served upon any of them. Service on one of that party's counsel is sufficient; there is no need to serve every lawyer on the team, and the serving party does not need to guess which of the several counsel is lead counsel.
Why this streamlines multi-party appeals
Without a rule like this, service in a case with many parties and lawyers could multiply the number of copies required well beyond what is practical. By tying service to the counsel relationship rather than to each individual party, Section 11 keeps brief distribution manageable even in appeals with numerous appellants or appellees, so the serving party's workload does not grow simply because the opposing side has many names on the caption.
What this means in practice for the serving party
A party preparing to serve its brief should count copies by counsel, not by party, since that is the unit the rule actually uses. Counting by party can lead to over-serving where one lawyer represents several appellants, or to confusion about which of several counsel for one party should receive the copy. Getting this count right also matters because the required proof of service accompanying the filed brief should reflect service consistent with what Section 11 actually requires.
Who this binds and what an undercount risks
Section 11 binds the party responsible for serving the brief — it does not shift that burden onto the court or onto the counsel being served, who has no duty to flag an incorrect number of copies before the deadline passes. The rule does not address what happens once a counsel of record for several appellants withdraws from representing some of them, so a serving party should confirm the current scope of each counsel's representation rather than rely on an outdated caption. Serving too few copies among counsel who each represent a distinct, non-overlapping subset of parties can leave some appellants without proper notice of the brief, which is the same defective-service risk that attaches to service generally under the Rules of Court.
Related provisions
- Rule 44, Section 11 — Several appellants or appellees or several counsel for each party
- Rule 44, Section 8 — Appellee' s brief
- Rule 44, Section 9 — Appellant' s reply brief