I
am
old
enough
to
remember
when
many
courts
did
not
have
electronic
systems
to
accept
documents
for
filing. During
this
time,
filing
motion
papers,
pleadings,
and
other
documents
was
an
arduous
process
that
either
involved
going
to
court
or
using
a
service
to
file
hardcopy
documents
with
clerks
located
in
various
places. Efiling
systems
offer
a
convenient
way
to
file
and
serve
papers
with
courts
and
adversaries,
and
the
entire
process
can
be
completed
from
the
comfort
of
an
attorney’s
home
or
office. However,
some
people
use
efiling
systems
to
send
unnecessary
documents
to
stakeholders
involved
in
litigation,
which
can
lead
to
unnecessary
filings
and
clogged
dockets
that
make
it
more
difficult
to
find
relevant
documents. In
many
instances,
there
are
certain
documents
that
attorneys
should
try
not
to
efile.
Letters
To
Counsel
It
usually
makes
sense
to
efile
letters
to
a
judge,
although
some
judges
prefer
that
letters
be
emailed
so
that
they
are
seen
faster,
and
individual
practices
should
be
consulted. However,
it
almost
never
makes
sense
to
efile
letters
to
counsel. There
is
no
reason
why
courts
need
to
be
involved
in
letters
to
counsel,
and
before
efiling
systems,
no
one
would
ever
think
of
filing
letters
between
counsel
with
the
court.
However,
I
have
had
several
adversaries
over
the
years
who
efile
letters
to
counsel. In
some
instances,
“good
faith”
letters
about
discovery
disputes
are
efiled,
and
in
other
cases,
letters
about
scheduling
and
other
matters
are
efiled. In
some
instance,
filers
style
these
letters
as
“letters
to
the
court”
or
something
similar
since
there
is
usually
no
filing
option
for
letters
between
counsel. Of
course,
efiling
a
letter
might
be
a
good
way
to
create
a
record
about
a
dispute
and
show
when
a
letter
was
indeed
served
on
other
stakeholders
to
a
case. However,
letters
between
counsel
should
usually
just
be
sent
by
email
or
other
nonpublic
means,
and
they
can
be
attached
as
exhibits
to
motion
papers
as
needed.
Discovery
Demands
And
Responses
Some
attorneys
efile
discovery
demands
and
responses,
and
in
some
instances,
it
makes
sense
to
efile
discovery
demands. For
instance,
in
one
jurisdiction
in
which
I
practice,
attorneys
can
gain
an
advantage
if
they
file
a
notice
to
take
deposition
with
their
answer.
However,
it
often
does
not
make
sense
to
efile
every
single
discovery
demand
that
is
sent
in
a
case.
It
makes
less
sense
to
efile
discovery
responses. In
the
days
before
efiling
systems,
people
would
never
think
of
filing
discovery
responses
with
courts
since
discovery
responses
are
not
the
type
of
legal
papers
that
need
to
be
filed.
In
addition,
discovery
responses
often
contain
social
security
numbers
and
other
confidential
information
that
should
not
be
included
in
the
public
domain. Again,
if
discovery
is
relevant
to
a
motion,
it
can
be
filed
with
motion
papers,
but
it
need
not
be
filed
in
the
first
instance.
Affirmations
Of
Service
This
is
a
pet
peeve
of
mine,
but
some
court
rules
specifically
provide
that
if
an
efiling
system
is
used,
a
separate
affirmation
of
service
does
not
need
to
be
filed. The
confirmation
of
efiling
is
sufficient
to
satisfy
any
type
of
affirmation
of
service
requirement.
Notwithstanding
this
rule,
many
attorneys
still
efile
affirmation
of
service. This
is
pretty
harmless,
but
this
might
create
a
docket
entry
that
does
not
need
to
exist.
All
told,
efiling
systems
should
only
be
used
for
bona
fide
filings
that
need
to
be
provided
to
courts
and
served
on
stakeholders
to
a
lawsuit. Clogging
dockets
with
unnecessary
filings
creates
more
efiling
notifications
and
makes
it
harder
to
review
dockets
for
important
information.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.