Communications with Lawyers and the Courts – with the advent of the internet and email communications things have really changed.  The US Mail and then  faxes, or even personal delivery was the way of the Profession for many years.

• Using email – email is cheap and has become ubiquitous (“it’s everywhere”).
• Pluses & Minuses – email communications are easy and cheap, as well as relatively instant, plus  one has a record of sending things with some relative proof.  The use of Bar Association  listed email addresses provides a relatively reliable source of a “good email address” that can be relied upon.  However, the whole situation is somewhat ethereal and lacks the concrete nature of good old “snail mail”.  Further, what if the recipient does not go on to his/ her email on a daily or more frequent basis? Still we rely upon the communications and hope they are satisfactory to counsel and the Court.
• Communication with clients – most clients have email addresses, but are they as arduous about “going on” their email as Lawyers have become.  Does the email demand the respect of the “hard” document received in the mail? Do the Lawyers communications get mixed in and missed with the barrage of emails that many users receive each day or even hour?  Must the prudent Lawyer use multiple communications to take his/ her best shot at assuring the receipt of important client-attorney communications?  There are not fixed answers to these questions, we just point out the challenges of communications in the modern electronic age, and still wonder if the US Mail is the “way to go”….
• You’re better off sending an email – the beauty of an email is that it can be printed and by using receipt functions on most email systems the sender can prove that the communication was both sent and received, much better that a phone call, fax or a letter which have no real methods of proofs.
• Slow Method / Backwards Method – the Lawyer can take his chances relying upon phone calls,  faxes or US Mail letters but without the proofs of a simple email the Lawyer remains vulnerable, and may ultimately rely upon affidavits and other “he said, she said” methods of proving that sometimes vital communications have been sent and received.