Judge Gayles Just "Unfriended" Me!

 
Was anyone practicing when "faxes" came along?

I remember lengthy discussions, ethics opinions, and substantial research devoted to what the appropriate disclaimer a law firm should place along the bottom half of the fax cover sheet.

This was the result of uncertainty over how documents that used to be mailed can be magically transported through telephone lines to be reassembled at the other end by bulky, loud perforated-sheet fax monstrosities.  What if an important document is sent to the wrong number?

Same with email -- are they privileged if faceless "servers" have access to your content while assembling and reassembling data packet transmissions to your client?  How detailed should my disclaimer be?

We face that same fear of technology in this 4th DCA opinion regarding being "Facebook friends" with a presiding judge:

Further, the Committee concluded that when a judge lists a lawyer who appears before him as a “friend” on his social networking page this “reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer ‘friends’ are in a special position to influence the judge.”

That's right -- for example, I'm "friends" with both President Obama and Tim Gunn so I can reasonably expect these guys to do me a solid from time to time.

I don't necessarily blame the 4th here -- they were working off of a 2009 ethics advisory opinion and felt constrained to adopt that reasoning.

2009?

In interweb years that is ancient history -- it's like three Friendsters ago!

Finally -- Mandatory Service By Email!

Our  Supreme Overlords fine jurists in Tally have finally approved mandatory service by email:

[N]ew rule 2.516 provides that all documents required or permitted to be served on another party must be served by e-mail. Under subdivision (b)(1) (Service by Electronic Mail (―e-mail‖)), upon appearing in a proceeding a lawyer must designate a primary e-mail address, and may designate up to two secondary e-mail addresses, for receiving service. Thereafter, service on the lawyer must be made by e-mail. The rule does permit several limited exceptions to this requirement. A lawyer may file a motion to be excused from e-mail service, demonstrating that he or she has no e-mail account and lacks access to the Internet at the lawyer’s office.

Ok, I want to know what lawyer could possibly lack both an email account and internet connection?

Got it!

Magistrate Judge Goodman Practice Tip #214: Don't Email Me Your Views on Proposed Orders!

 It was always my understanding that the email address provided for the submission of proposed orders in federal Court was to be used strictly to (1) delight the Judge with your cute kitten pictures; (2) share highly partisan derogatory quips about President Obama (they're so funny!); and (3) involve the Judge in ponderous email chains that require the recipient to forward long-discredited urban rumors to ten "friends" or else face doom and gloom and the death of the aforesaid cute kitten.

Oh yeah -- and also to let the Judge know you substantively object to a proposed order.

But Magistrate Judge Goodman apparently thinks otherwise:

Counsel of Record may submit proposed orders on motions, where required by a rule or procedure of the Court, to the Court's e-file inbox. However, counsel may not email the Court for any other reason. For example, counsel may not send an email response to the submission of a proposed order. If a party objects to a motion, then the only appropriate procedure is to file a formal , written objection with the Clerk of Court.

Sheesh, come on folks -- you're not in state court anymore!

(BTW, is it just me or is the Judge being deliberately vague as to cute kitten pictures?)

I think so......