In any case, these types of vendors offer their services to legal practitioners who need to often file and serve documents in adjoining or more distant counties or even, at times, in another state. The services claim to offer a more cost effective alternative to traditional manual methods of filing with the courts and getting documents to opposing counsel. By employing such an e-service, firms trust that these vendors will get their precious cargo to its port by or before an often inflexible deadline. What results instead is an often circuitous path between you, the vendor and the court clerk's office with next to no meaningful communication between the latter two parties.
Robert, who practices law in Los Angeles but who is also licensed to practice in Nevada, needed to file a reply brief in Clark County, Nevada, by the 10th of this month. He had been informed by the Clark County District Court web site that it contracted with a certain service that facilitated ''e-filing'' and service to opposing counsel. Robert finished his brief and, after responding to a labyrinthine series of prompts, thought he had successfully submitted his reply brief for filing. He went to bed that night safe in his thoughts and dreams.
I need to mention that this vendor serves other areas of the country. I also need to mention that one should beware the Clark County District Court Clerk's office when filing. Putting the obvious aside-why form should be, in this or any case, placed over substance- I need to enumerate a few of the questions that come immediately to my mind:
- If there are such strict rules, why would a form used by, imaginably, thousands of clients allow for such an error?
- Shouldn't the employees of the third party service know that there are in existence such strict Court rules, which are undoubtedly enforced, and either amend the formatting or proof what's coming through their hands?
- What was up that clerk's butt that day?
