PDF for Lawyers

More on PDF/A

As we discussed back in mid-November, federal courts are in the process of moving their e-filing standard from PDF to the long-term archival standard known as PDF/A. There were some good comments to that post, which tells me that this is a topic of great interest to this blog's readers. I assume most of you know about Rick Borstein's excellent blog: Acrobat for Legal Professionals. And therefore I presume many of you read his post about the federal court's move to the PDF/A standard (if not, click on the link).

As I said before, the transition isn't going to be that difficult. Also, I don't see a big need for attorneys to convert old PDF files to the new standard. If you've uploaded something to a federal court and it's been accepted as a filing you're not going to have to re-upload that file. The PDF/A standard is beneficial because it will likely retain compatibility and usability longer than regular PDF files; on the other hand, you do lose some multi-media and hyperlink functionality.

Federal courts move to require PDF/A for e-filing

Federal courts are moving towards adopting PDF/A as the standard format for electronic filing, which is prompting many attorneys to say "what is a PDF/A?" The federal courts have anticipated this question and responded with an FAQ page on the PACER site. As that site points out, PDF/A is a widely recognized subset of the PDF standard designed for long term archiving. Since the primary goal of PDF/A is long-term archiving it excludes those PDF features that would hamper access to the file later on. (Read this WikiPedia entry for more information on PDF/A).

So why are federal courts transitioning to PDF/A? Basically, to ensure that electronic records are preserved as far into the future as possible. Federal courts seek to comply with the requirements of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Federal courts will vary as to when they start requiring that documents be filed in the PDF/A format, but all courts currently will accept PDF/A files if they are uploaded to the CM/ECF system. If you want to create a PDF/A it's pretty easy: just open a PDF in Acrobat and choose 'SAVE AS' and then select PDF/A as the format.

As I mentioned in the beginning, one key aspect of PDF/A is that it doesn't have all of the features of a regular PDF. For example, multi-media files are disabled in a PDF/A. So, for example, an embedded audio or video file would not work. And hyperlinks are also not preserved, at least not 'masked hyperlinks.' A string of text that says click here and clearly contains a link (as the 'click here' text in this sentence does) is a 'masked hyperlink.' An unmasked hyperlink would look like this: http://www.svensonlaw.com.  Supposedly, unmasked hyperlinks might still work in a PDF/A document. But my tests suggest that they do not.

Why should attorneys care about whether links (masked or unmasked) work in PDF/A?

Well, increasingly, attorneys are discovering that having the ability to link to external material is a useful tool. One could easily imagine a brief where each case citation was a hyperlink to the the case in Google Advanced Scholar. Or if the attorney needed to cite to a video deposition that was stored on YouTube then they could link to the deposition using a hyperlink.

Except that PDF/A won't allow this.

A friend of mine who works at a federal court told me that the judges are considering exceptions that would allow the filing of a PDF document, rather than a PDF/A in certain situations (e.g. if attorney needs to embed an audio file of a hearing or proceeding). Even so, I wouldn't count on many exceptions being allowed. Once PDF/A becomes the standard expect it to be rigorously enforced.

Naturally, the prospect of a fundamental change like this will bring out some opportunists.

For example, I've heard discussions by vendors of PDF compatible products suggesting to attorneys that "they will need to figure out how to mass-convert their current PDFs to PDF/A." This strikes me as a bit over-the-top. Attorneys don't need to mass convert their PDFs because the court's requirement will kick in on a 'going forward' basis. New filings will, at some point, have to be made in PDF/A format, but the old stuff is in the system and no one is going to expect the attorneys to re-file all their pleadings. Maybe the federal courts will look to mass-convert their PDFs, but I doubt it.

So, that's the story on PDF/A and the upcoming change in e-filing. It's good that federal courts are addressing long-term archival issues of their electronic records. Whether attorneys need to do the same thing is subject to debate, but I would say that most of them certainly don't need to rush to change their current workflow. If you're interested in learning everything possible about PDF/A (and have about $70 burning a hole in your pocket) then you might want to read PDF/A in a Nutshell. (Update: You can get copies of the PDF/A in a Nutshell from the author Matt Beals by sending an email to sales@tools4media.com. The cost is $29 + shipping).

 

Using Acrobat to put Exhibit stamps on digital documents

Okay, this is a major PDF breakthrough for lawyers.  If you want to be able to stamp your digital documents with Exhibit labels and then have them numbered (or lettered) you need to go read this post right now.  Installing the plug-in is easy as pie.  If you do e-filing in federal court you need this.  If you prepare documents for trial you need this. If you're a lawyer and you use PDFs you need this.

And for his excellent work, I hereby nominate Rick Borstein for the Nobel Prize in PDF Technology!

How to make a pretty electronic signature

I've written before about how lawyers' obsession with having their actual signatures on e-filed documents can lead to trouble.  Now, from Rick Borstein's excellent blog comes a great post about how to create a transparent signature stamp.  I was alerted to this by Dennis Kennedy whose post has some great resources links to information about electronic signatures.

E-filing - More thoughts on scanning problems

So the post about keeping the file size down generated a lot of good comments and feedback.  Many people are surprised that lawyers are scanning entire documents just so that they can have their orignal signature appear on the document that they e-file.  I'm not; lawyers are comfortable with signatures and they like them.  I'll bet their are lawyers out there trying to figure out how to apply sealing wax to their e-filed documents.

Anyway, as we mentioned, the federal courts don't need your signature.  But, if you really must, have something that appears to be your signature on your e-filed documents consider this option:

1. scan your signature
2. create a table in Word/Wordperfect
3. place image of scanned signature in document
4. Save the signature block for re-use
5. Later, rinse, re-file

One thing that I didn't mention is that scanning the whole document isn't a bad idea just because it creates a larger file size.  It's also a bad idea because it will annoy some court personnel.  If the document is text-based then they can search inside of it.  If it's an image then they can't (unless they OCR it, which they probably can't do).  So, do yourself and the clerks at federal court a favor and stop scanning your documents to PDF.

And move away from the sealing wax.  (You know who you are).

With E-filing the file-size matters

Today I had the opportunity to talk with the Deputy Clerk of one of the federal courts in Louisiana about e-filing.  All of our federal trial courts now have e-filing, and the Eastern District announced mandatory e-filing effective the beginning of this year.  Even though e-filing was just introduced in the EDLA in April of last year, already 60% of the filings in active cases are being done electronically.

One interesting thing that I learned was that apparently a lot of lawyers are still creating their PDFs by scanning them, instead of simply 'capturing the text' as a print file and doing the conversion that way.  I asked the Deputy Clerk why this was happening.  He said that probably a lot of lawyers like to see their signature on the document so when they create a pleading to be filed electronically they follow this process:

1. Print out word processing document
2. Physically sign the last page where the signature line is
3. Scan the document back in to create a PDF
4. Upload the resulting PDF into the e-filing system

This is not optimal, and can actually lead to problems.  In fact, about two hours after talking to the Deputy Clerk I got a call from an attorney who wanted me to help him with an e-filing problem he was having with a court outside of Louisiana.  His problem, as it turned out, was caused by creating a PDF via scanning.

The problem with creating a PDF via scanning (as opposed to 'text capture') is that it creates a PDF that has a larger file size.  My attorney friend not only was scanning his documents, but also had the scanner set to create a 'grayscale' file, instead of a black and white file.  When I say 'he' had the scanner set to grayscale I really mean 'his IT department' had it set that way.  Most attorneys don't want (and shouldn't have) to bother with stuff like scanner settings.

The problem that he encountered as he tried to file his bloated PDF was that it exceeded the 2 MB file size limit that his court imposed.  Two of the documents that he was trying to file were simple 4 page affidavits.  When I looked at them each one was over 2 MBs in size.  That's WAY too big!

So, if you're stuck on the idea of scanning then make sure that you (or your IT department) sets the scanner you will be using to the following settings: 200 to 300 dpi (no greater), and black & white (not grayscale, and DEFINITELY not color).  One problem with making this the default setting is that many law firms now use large copy machines that double as scanners (e.g. an HP digital sender that emails the recipient a PDF through the firm's network).  Some of the people who use that copier from time to time are going to WANT color PDFs, or even grayscale. So there may be a fight about what the default setting should be.  And the default setting may not be easily changed on some of those machines.

The best solution to this situation is to learn how to simply convert your Word or Wordperfect files to PDF.  The latest versions of these programs, I think, allow the creation of PDF documents.  If you don't have a word processing program that is natively capable of creating PDFs there are free programs like CutePDF that allow you to create them easily (basically by creating a 'virtual printer' that you select so that the output, instead of being paper, is a PDF file).  The best way is to buy a full copy of Acrobat (approx: $299), which may seem expensive until you botch a last minute e-filing and wind up spending five times what the program costs trying to make your document conform to the technical requirements of the court's computer system.

Remember, you don't need to affix your actual scrawly signature to a piece of paper in order to 'sign' your pleading.  The courts that allow e-filing presume that a slash followed by your typewritten name is sufficient to constitute a 'signature.'  Actually, though, the authentication aspect of your signature is accomplished by virtue of your login when you file.  A password protected login is, in the world of computers, the (vastly superior) equivalent of your unreadable scrawl.  But, for some reason, this simple concept eludes even the most brilliant lawyers.

One last observation: for some documents you are going to have to scan them to create a PDF.  For example, the affidavits that my friend needed were not going to be simply 'captured' from a word processing document because the affiant actually needed to sign the document.  So, in that case, it would be necessary to know how to create a PDF by scanning it.

E-Filing in New Orleans Federal Court

So today I went in for my training in E-filing for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Anyone can sign up for the training, after which you'll be allowed to file electronically in the Eastern District.  The training session lasts for just under 2 hours and it is very informative. I figured that I wouldn't learn anything all that useful, but I was amazed at how much there is to learn besides the basic filing techniques (which are pretty easy once you get the gist of the system).

One aspect of the training covers the "query functions" (basically PACER), which I thought I knew.  The "related transactions" link in PACER was something I had never explored.  By clicking on that link you can group filings together, so that you can view links to the complaint and all the associated answers together.  It's an excellent visual cue as to which pleadings have not been responded to.  You can also have the system calculate the due date for things like answers to complaints.  And you can query the system for all pending motions and deadlines. What attorney wouldn't like to be able to do that?

For information on signing up for training click here.  The first two training classes are already booked.  Just be sure to download and fill out the attorney registration form and bring it to your training session.

Electronic filing in federal courts

Electronic filing is the way of the future, but it's also the way of the present since CM/ECF is now in use in 89% of the federal courts: 87 district courts, 92 bankruptcy courts, the Court of International Trade, and the Court of Federal Claims.   A principle feature of e-filing is that all attorneys are notified by email when an e-filing occurs.  What does the notice of electronic filing look like?  It looks like this. (PDF file, with explanation of what happens once an electronic notice is sent out).

Keep up with court e-filing developments

Check out this blog, which aspires to bring news about Electronic Filing and Electronic Service in Courts in the United States and elsewhere.  RSS feed available.

E-filing of taxes and PDF issues

Interesting article on tax filing: "All companies with assets of $50 million or more and which file at least 250 returns annually must electronically file their 2005 taxes in 2006. And although 30 percent of those surveyed are researching their options, followed by 18 percent who have started to evaluate alternatives, only 15 percent have a plan in place to satisfy the e-filing requirement.  Michael Dolan, director of IRS policies and dispute resolution in the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP says:  "Corporate taxpayers hoping for a waiver will likely be disappointed, as the IRS has indicated that limited waivers will only be granted for extreme hardships. E-filing is really going to happen in 2006."

Apparently, a big issue with e-filing is how to handle attachments.  Financial records that are subject to being attached can be in more than one format, such as Word or Excel.  The IRS has made some first-year-only exemptions for using PDF attachments, but this is only for certain documents.