EDIT: 06-05-2023 — reader Hillary S. makes a great point, citing the panel decision of Zenner and the 8 CCR 10205.6, which provides that, absent an agreement between the parties to accept service via any method, but, absent such an agreement, the default would be by first class U.S. mail. However, your humble blogger would point out a few items on this:
- The regulations cited below still require disclosure of an e-mail address for an attorney as part of a Notice of Representation;
- 8 CCR 10205.6 predates current 8 CCR 10625 by about 7 years; 10625 appears to be the most recent law and the two regulations are potentially in conflict, although the Zenner case (2022 Cal.Wrk.Comp.PD Lexis 324 harmonizes both by holding that 10205.6 still controls absent an agreement
Thank you to Hillary S for pointing this out!
Your humble blogger bids you a happy Friday, dear readers, and hopes this weekend has wonderful things in store for you!
But, let me ask you a question before you check out for the next few days. A question which you will undoubtedly have you yelling “not no, but heck no!” into your computer screen (or phone, or tablet ,or what have you).
Have you ever asked opposing counsel for an e-mail address only to be told “we don’t do e-mails”? Well, those of us who have been around a while remember when there was some initial resistance to e-mail correspondence, but recently? With the pandemic? IN THIS ECONOMY?!? Just about everyone is on board with e-mail communication.
This is great for a lot of reasons – this saves on costs: paper, postage, clerical labor, and storage. Also, there is zero doubt as to when the correspondence was sent and received. It is all upside, no?
Well, recently, I encountered one of those rare hold-outs that refuses to use e-mail for communication related to litigation. At a deposition of an applicant I asked opposing counsel for an e-mail address and was rebuffed: “we don’t do e-mails!” Having come to this country as an immigrant, I always harbor some hidden doubt as to my English skills, so at first I thought I misunderstood. But no, applicant’s counsel doubled down and refused to provide an e-mail address.
Well, as uncle Ivan used to say e-mails “not optionary!” 8 CCR 10625(b)(2) specifically provides that service may be made via e-mail. If a party may serve via e-mail, other parties cannot refuse to accept service via e-mail, and thus must provide an e-mail for service.
But more than that, representatives appearing before the WCAB must file appropriate Notice of Representation. 8 CCR 10400(b)(3) specifically provides that an attorney’s notice of representation “shall include … the … e-mail address … o the law firm or other entity’s agent for service of process.”
Without a valid e-mail address, presumably, the notice of representation would be incomplete and defective.
What do you think, dear readers? Are you one of those that refuses to provide an e-mail address to opposing counsel? If you are… how are you reading this article? Have you encountered any such folks in your travels?
Let your humble blogger know, and have a great weekend!