The Fourth Circuit has adopted mandatory electronic filing as of June 1, 2008. Register here.
I wonder how this is going to change the appellate process, and how it is going to affect the business of the printing companies who service the needs of parties in the appellate courts.
Tips recently provided from the DC Superior Court for successful e-filing:
ü I have the proper full case number and judge having checked at www.dccourts.gov/pa
ü If I am filing in response to opposing counsel’s filing, I have checked my eService Inbox to make sure the court clerk accepted the opposing counsel’s filing before I eFile
ü I have typed “/s/” and the filing attorney’s name, applied an imaged signature, or printed the document, had it signed and scanned
ü I have named my documents appropriately on my computer (i.e. Motion for Summary Judgment, Certificate of Service, Answer, Opposition, Witness List)
ü I have included a properly completed Certificate of Service with a signature and date of service specifying who and how service was accomplished
ü I have included a Proposed Order in the efiling
ü For filings over 25 pages, I am uploading all documents attached to the lead filing in the second field and checking the merger box
ü For filings over 25 pages, I have also mailed a paper copy to the Judge
ü I have emailed the Proposed Order to the judge to the judge’s eservice box:
ü In a Microsoft Word or WordPerfect format
ü Subject line includes case number followed by case name
ü email format: judge[lastname]eserve@dcsc.gov or magistratejudge[lastname]eserve@dcsc.gov
ü I have caused service of this filing to be made
Thanks to Ernie Svenson via Dennis Kennedy for useful tips on how to better use pdfs when filing in federal court. Dennis Kennedy says that "One of the best uses of training time and dollars for lawyers would be classes on using Acrobat." He's right. I would add that any lawyer (or lawfirm IT guy) who orders a new computer or laptop without getting Acrobat bundled with it will regret it.
The Maryland State Bar Association has contracted with Fastcase to offer its members online legal research as a benefit included with membership. Here is the announcement.
I am strongly in favor of programs like this, for reasons I have stated before. I think that the DC Bar or the Bar Association of DC should do the same.
I think Maryland lawyers are going to be surprised and delighted by Fastcase.
The Maryland Judiciary Search page lets you run searches for litigants in Maryland state courts, with the exception of Montgomery County and PG County. This is something a lawyer should routinely use to check out opposing parties, witnesses, and clients. Also, I just learned about Zillow.com, which is a website for researching real estate values. I actually learned about it from last night's Nightline show, so I'm way behind the curve on that.
At my law firm's website, we have extensive research links to sources that are relevant to civil litigation. The trend seems to be to not include research links in law firm websites anymore, probably on the theory that if you get someone to visit your site, it is counter-productive to provide links that take the visitor away from the site. The research links for large law firms probably reside on their intranets instead. I've even noticed signs of the same philosophy on some of the more commercial law firm weblogs -- it's as if they just don't want to link to anything that is going to take a visitor away from their marketing materials. Maybe if you invest too much money in a gussied-up weblog, that's how you have to feel. The better view, I think, is that linking is the essence of the internet, and if you are not providing interesting links, you are wasting your time and your reader's time.
Brian Krebs of the Washington Post has been writing a series of must-read articles for anyone who is concerned about the security of their home or office computers (which should be all attorneys). His column is called Security Fix, and it has an RSS feed.
Thanks to Jerry Lawson at Netlawblog.com for the tip on how to trace an email.
It's a pleasure to read his blog.
The Insurance Institute is offering a free download of home inventory software. I tried it out -- seems good enough for the purpose. You can upload a photo with each item entered.
Steven Minor, author of the SW Virginia blog, recently mentioned that the Virginia bar is considering a proposal to include online legal research as a membership benefit. Fastcase has submitted a bid to be the service provider. There is an article about this in the most recent Virginia Lawyer's Weekly newspaper (subscription only).
While I am not a member of the Virginia bar, I have an indirect interest. If the Virginia bar provides online research capability as a membership benefit, the D.C. Bar and the Maryland State Bar Associations are more likely to follow suit.
As I've said before, I think it is a no-brainer for any state bar association to offer this as a benefit. The Washington Lawyer has also recently run an article on this. To me it is just common sense that a bar association would secure inexpensive access to online legal research for its members. It can only raise the overall quality of service for all members of the bar to have unlimited, low fee or no fee access to online legal research. It will potentially reduce costs and overhead for the bar membership, and will encourage pro bono services. It ensures some competition in the market for online legal research. Imagine what Lexis and Westlaw might cost if there is no other competition. It also would be a great incentive to join a bar association, where membership is voluntary. It seems like a natural extension of the traditional function of the bar association in providing law libraries for its members.
Virginia is considering Fastcase, which has fairly good national coverage and, last time I checked it out, had a clean, simple interface and offered boolean and natural language searching.
Apparently Casemaker previously also submitted a bid to the Virginia Bar. The bar associations of 22 states have now adopted Casemaker. However, according to the Virginia Lawyers Weekly, the bar association withdrew its request for proposals after another legal publisher, Geronimo Development Corp. which publishes the CaseFinder CD/online legal research system, threatened to file suit. Geronimo explains its position on its website -- it is concerned that as a Virginia-specific product, its business will be destroyed if the Virginia State Bar Association offers a competing product as a zero cost benefit of membership. The Virginia Attorney General's Office disagrees, and among other things cites the market experience where other state bar associations offer similar programs.
To me it looks like CaseFinder has greater Virginia coverage than FastCase, since it includes selected Circuit Court opinions and workers compensation commission decisions, and perhaps more. Plus a CD based service would be available when a firm's internet access is down.
After this dispute arose, according to the Virginia Lawyers Weekly, the Virginia Supreme Court passed a rule directing the state bar association to provide online research services to its members, which apparently was designed to provide a state-action exemption to any antitrust claim.
Then the bar association reissued its RFP, and Fastcase submitted the only bid. It isn't clear whether Casemaker and Versuslaw were scared off by the threatened antitrust suit. It remains to be seen what the Virginia State Bar will do.
Courts in most jurisdictions are not only publishing their opinions electronically, but are incorporating powerful search engines into their websites. Likewise, administrative agencies like the Virginia Workers Compensation Commission are offering that service. With each passing year, the body of law that is available online and searchable at zero cost is increasing. Given that, it is hard to imagine that Geronimo's threatened antitrust suit will go anywhere, but I have no doubt it would be hideously expensive.
