The Electronic Lawyer

I was sitting in LA Superior Court one morning, waiting for my motion to be called, when I overheard one septugenarian lawyer tell his partner, "I don't do e-mail. When we get back, can you show me how to make an e-mail?"

Replied his partner, "What's to know? You just send an e-mail!"

Conversations like that make me concerned that knowledge of the Internet is becoming mandatory for attorneys. Starting next year, the United States District Court for the Central District of California -- like all of the other federal district courts in the state -- will require mandatory e-filing for all cases. (It already requires e-filing for intellectual property and criminal cases.) Some state courts -- particularly complex-case courts -- require e-filing. Further, the Central District is forcing all attorneys admitted to practice before it to either undergo e-filing training or supply proof of training from another California District court; or face sanctions.

Also, if the California Supreme Court approves a State Bar proposal, every attorney licensed to practice in California will not only have to register with the bar online every year, but will also have to furnish an e-mail address. So yes, that elderly lawyer will have to learn to make an e-mail.

I have mixed thoughts about e-filing. It eliminates filings that are late because the messenger could not make it across town before the filing window closed; and it allows filing documents from across the state (or country, or world). It also saves ink, paper, and (when other parties can be served electronically) postage. On the other hand, if your (or the court's) Internet connection goes down at a crucial time, you can be in trouble. Further, most district courts that require e-filing also require filers to send a paper courtesy copy of the document directly to the judge -- which kind of erases some of the benefits of e-filing. The ideal solution would be optional e-filing; but the courts appear to consider that too cumbersome.