The Legal Profession Blog has an interesting post about Stephen Harris, a Kansas attorney who was disciplined because he refused to file bankruptcy pleadings electronically. The opinion from the Supreme Court of Kansas explains:

In January 2005, Respondent attempted to file a bankruptcy case, in behalf of another client, using paper pleadings rather than electronic pleadings. The bankruptcy court sent Respondent an order and in the order advised Respondent that petitions and other pleadings must be filed electronically. The court ordered Respondent to attend the required training, pass the examination, and obtain a login name and password within 30 days. Respondent failed to obtain a login name and password within 30 days.

On March 31, 2005, Respondent attempted to file a bankruptcy case in behalf of another client. On April 11, 2005, a bankruptcy judge advised Respondent in writing that he was not permitted to file a bankruptcy case using paper pleadings and that all pleadings must be filed electronically.

In July 2005, C.G. retained Respondent to prepare and file a bankruptcy case in his behalf prior to the change in bankruptcy laws scheduled for October 2005. Respondent informed C.G. that it would take 6 to 8 weeks to file the bankruptcy. C.G. paid Respondent an advanced fee of $800. Despite the fact that Respondent knew that he did not have a login name and password to enable him to file bankruptcy cases, Respondent agreed to represent C.G.

On September 12, 2005, Respondent spoke with C.G. by telephone. At that time, C.G. informed Respondent that he needed the bankruptcy case to be filed immediately because his two vehicles had been repossessed. During the conversation, C.G. asked Respondent whether Respondent had a login name and password to enable him to file bankruptcy pleadings. Respondent informed C.G. that he had a login name and password. Later, in the same telephone conversation, Respondent informed C.G. that he did not have a login name and password but that he would get one by the end of the week. Still later in the telephone conversation, Respondent assured C.G. that he would obtain a login name and password with sufficient time to file the bankruptcy before the laws changed.

I really just don’t understand this. If you do not like electronic filing, that is your prerogative. However, if you are going to practice in a court that requires electronic filing, you must comply with those rules. Trying to submit paper documents with a court that requires electronic filing is no different from trying to file your pleadings in the form of a scroll with a court that accepts only 8.5 x 11 paper.

Following court rules is not a difficult concept. It can be a pain sometimes, but the rules are not optional. The attorney here compounded his error in a couple of ways. First, not only did not not follow the court rules requiring him to file his documents electronically, but he also failed to follow a specific order directed at him to obtain his efiling access within 30 days. Once again, there are ways to disagree or challenge court orders. Simply ignoring them is not an acceptable alternative.

The second thing the attorney did to compound his error was that he continued to accept new clients when he knew that he could not file pleadings on their behalf.

If you are going to practice before a particular court, follow the rules. If you want to follow those rules, find a different court to practice before or seek to change the rules.

I know that I have been bagging on the Cook County Clerk’s office lately. See this, for example. It’s not that I want to pick on them. However, the reality is that they are the ones that I have problems with.

For example, after I was unable to find a complaint or answer in the file that I looked at yesterday, I had another court appearance, this time on a motion in the municipal division. For the record, I hate appearing in muni in Cook County. This division handles civil cases in which the amount in controversy is less than $30,000. There are lots of these cases filed in Cook County. Consequently, these are high volume courtrooms.

To understand the story I am about to relate, you must understand a little how Cook County operates their muni call. In an ideal world, this is how the call is supposed to work.

1. The Plaintiff files a lawsuit and sets a return date.
2. The Sheriff obtains service on the Defendant.
3. The Defendant files an appearance on or before the return date.
4. If the Defendant files an appearance, the matter is set for status at a date in the future.
5. If the Defendant files an appearance with a jury demand, the case is set for status in the jury call courtroom.
6. If the Defendant does not file an appearance, an order of default is entered and the case is set for the entry of a default judgment in the future.

Leaving the fantasy world and returning to reality, this is what actually happened in my case when I filed it.

1. I file a complaint and set a return date.
2. The Defendant timely files an appearance and a jury demand.
3. The case is transferred to the jury call courtroom for a day in the future.
4. AND an order of default is entered against the Defendant because, despite the fact that the Defendant filed a timely appearance, that information was not entered in to whatever system sends out the default notices. The case is thus set for a prove up date in the future in the original courtroom.
5. We appear in the jury call courtroom, however, the case is not on that call any more because the order of default had been entered.
6. Because no order was entered in the jury call courtroom, our case is dismissed for want of prosecution.
7. Thereafter, the judge in the original courtroom straightens everything out, vacates the default, vacates the DWP, and transfers the matter to the jury call courtroom.

This case has quite a history so far. Once in the jury call courtroom, the case is automatically set for arbitration. That date happened to conflict with my schedule. Thus I was appearing to continue the arbitration date. When I stepped up, the clerk informed the judge that a DWP had been entered in my case. The judge asked me what I knew about that. Rather than explaining everything above, I just told the judge that the prior judge had vacated the DWP and that had all been taken care of months ago.

The clerk swore that it had never been vacated. I guess that the order I have vacating the DWP means nothing because some other clerk did not properly code or key in the previous order. Anyway, as I was stepping away from the bench, the judge suggested to me that I “clear up the matter of the DWP with the Clerk’s Office.”

My only question. Just how am I supposed to do that? The whole problem with the DWP in this case started because the Clerk’s Office screwed everything up. If an order from a judge vacating the DWP is not sufficient for the Clerk’s records, I am not quite sure what I am supposed to do to convince the clerk that the DWP was vacated.

I know I complained a couple of days again about the difficulty in getting a file from the courthouse in Illinois. It turns out, however, that Peter Olson was right: at least I got the file I wanted.

Today I had the “pleasure” of retrieving a file from the clerk’s office in Cook County. When I got the file, I flipped through it looking for a couple of key documents: the Complaint and the Answer, both of which were filed in 2005.

I found lots of orders, and other miscellaneous documents, including the summons. Strangely, however, there was no complaint or answer? I could be wrong here, but I had always believed that the Complaint was the document that started the file making process in the clerk’s office. It appears that I am wrong.

On the bright side, I did find two documents from unrelated files that were included in my file. Maybe I should have checked those files for for the Complaint.

I have no doubt that efiling will not solve all of the problems in the court system. However, it would certainly go a long way toward doing so.