ILNews

7th Circuit seeks comment on e-filing rule changes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is revising its rules to require initial electronic filing of all documents, and the federal appellate court is taking public comment for the next three weeks.

Proposed revisions to Circuit Rule 25 on e-filing and Rule 27 on emergency filings were posted Monday, giving the public until March 25 to review and submit comment about the changes. The Circuit would also strike Rule 31(e), which deals with uploading digital briefs and would no longer be needed under the new rules.

If the rules are adopted by an advisory committee as proposed, the court expects them to take effect May 1. A draft of the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) Procedures can be found on the court’s website at www.ca7.uscourts.gov.

“Many courts are using this e-filing already, so we’re just hopping on the bandwagon,” said Circuit Clerk Gino Agnello in Chicago. “This has been evolving nationally during the past two years and we’re one of the last to do it, because we wanted to make sure all the kinks are out of the system. We were one of the first in the country to make briefs and opinions available electronically and most attorneys have been doing this at the District level already, so our bar is ready to go.”

Rule 25 pertains to all briefs, motions, petitions, and similar documents filed with the court but does not apply to pro se litigants and also allows for parties to request an exemption from the rule. Rule 27 outlines the procedures for emergency filings when the Clerk’s Office is closed.

As far as electronic access to documents, these rule revisions don’t make any practical changes to what attorneys and members of the public will see online, Agnello said. Rather, it will push the court to go paperless and require the initial e-filing. Traditionally, paper filings have been the “official” copies while e-briefs have been the courtesy copy.

Agnello said pinpointing a number of documents this could involve is difficult to assess, because any of the 3,300 to 3,400 new filings a year could entail multiple briefs and documents.

“Whatever the amount, this will reduce the number of paper files we have dramatically,” Agnello said.

Written comments can be submitted to: Advisory Committee, c/o Clerk of Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 219 South Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60604. They can also be sent by email to USCA7_Clerk@ca7.uscourts.gov.

Once the start date gets closer, Agnello said the court will likely post training materials online for attorneys and members of the public.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT