The Minnesota Supreme Court adopted final e-filing rules as amendments to the Civil Rules, General Rules of Practice, and the Public Access Rules. These new rules go into effect on September 1, 2012 and apply to all matters commenced on or after September 1.
Perhaps most significantly, the final rules mandate electronic filing of all documents by attorneys representing parties in, and government agencies appearing in, all general civil and family law cases in the Second and Fourth Judicial Districts (i.e., Ramsey and Hennepin Counties) other than Conciliation Court and Probate/Mental Health cases. Attorneys and government agencies must also electronically serve all documents required or permitted to be served on other registered attorneys and government agencies in such cases.
While we suggest that you download the new rules by clicking on the link above, here are some additional points that may be of interest to you:
- Filing by fax will no longer be permitted in cases where e-filing is required.
- Documents that are to be filed electronically must be formatted as Microsoft Word documents, WordPerfect documents, PDF files, or .tif files. Without leave from the court, all images must be in black and white – no color images will be retained by the e-filing system.
- Each electronic document must be smaller than 5MB and each filing must be smaller than 25 MB. Larger documents or filings may be filed in several parts.
- Attorneys representing parties and governmental agencies appearing in mandatory e-filing cases must register with the e-filing system upon filing of any document by any party.
- New Rule 14.06 establishes a procedure for designating confidential or sealed documents that will be filed electronically.
- In addition to the required e-filing described above, voluntary e-filing is permitted in conciliation and probate mental health courts in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties as designated by the respective courts. Voluntary e-filing in civil cases in other pilot locations designated by the state court administrator will continue to be permitted.
via Minnesota Supreme Court Adopts New E-Filing Rules; Mandatory E-Filing to begin in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties | Practice Blawg.
An Indianapolis lawyer has received a public reprimand because she threatened to report an opposing lawyer to ethics authorities.The lawyer, Julia E. Dimick, wrote a letter implying she would file a grievance unless the opposing lawyer made a settlement offer, according to stipulated facts in the Indiana Supreme Court order PDF. The Legal Profession Blog notes the sanction.
Dimick made the implied threat while representing a woman in a potential claim against the lawyer over handling of settlement funds, the order says. Dimick’s letter had accused the other lawyer of a conflict of interest and other misconduct, and offered the lawyer a “window of opportunity” to resolve the case. Dimick wrote that if she did not hear from the lawyer within that time, she would file claims with the disciplinary commission and the state court.
via Lawyer Is Reprimanded for Threatening Ethics Complaint – News – ABA Journal.
The DOL has updated several FMLA forms. The forms that have been updated are as follows:
WH-380-E: Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee’s Serious Health Condition
WH-380-F: Certification of Health Care Provider for Family Member’s Serious Health Condition
WH-381: Notice of Eligibility and Rights & Responsibilities
WH-382: Designation Notice
WH-384: Certification of Qualifying Exigency For Military Family Leave
WH-385: Certification for Serious Injury or Illness of Covered Servicemember — for Military Family Leave
via Adjunct Law Prof Blog: DOL Issues New FMLA Forms.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether lawyers, journalists and human rights groups have standing to challenge a federal wiretap law.The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, says in a press release that the law allows the National Security Agency “to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international emails and phone calls.” At issue are 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act giving the government broader power to monitor electronic communications if the targets are foreigners outside the United States.
The plaintiffs claim they fear their conversations with people overseas are being wiretapped, but the Obama administration says the asserted future injuries are “conjectural and not imminent.” The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press and Reuters have stories on the cert grant.
via Supreme Court to Consider Standing in ACLU Suit Challenging Dragnet Surveillance – News – ABA Journal.