Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 11
A judge may assign a different e-mail address to a party for the purposes of achieving effective electronic service on that party. If service is made by e-mail, the documents may be transmitted via attachment or by providing a link within the body of the e-mail that will allow the party to download the document.
Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 11
Committee Comment
(Sept. 23, 2024)
The Committee seeks to clarify good faith practices concerning the electronic service of documents, especially with regards to self-represented litigants. Overall, practitioners should be mindful that self-represented litigants may be unsophisticated in electronic filing ("e-filing"), may not regularly use or have access to their e-mail address for business, or may be exempt from e-filing. While e-filing has been an advancement for filing, service, and maintenance of court records, the Committee cautions against using it in a way that could be detrimental to self-represented litigants.
1. A filing party does not obtain effective service of a document on the receiving party when service is sent to an address other than an address listed by the receiving party in either its appearance or the EFSP, or as established by court record as provided above. In other words, service at a different e-mail address is ineffective regardless of whether the party has used that address on other occasions.
2. A filing party may not enter an e-mail address obtained orally, informally, or on some other document like a lease or contract into an electronic filing service provider on behalf of the receiving party. Attorneys and self-represented litigants may use different e-mail addresses for different purposes, and only service on an address designated for service of legal documents is effective. The filing party may include other e-mail addresses in addition to the e-mail address designated in the appearance document for service of legal documents, but the non-designated address may not be the sole address served for purposes of Rule 11(c)(1).
3. When serving a self-represented litigant by e-mail, a filing party should make clear that the e-mail contains important legal documents such as including that information in the "Subject" line of the e-mail.
4. If the receiving party is self-represented but later retains counsel, counsel for a filing party acts consistently with the obligation of fairness embodied in Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4 by offering to send electronic copies of any previously filed documents to the receiving party's new counsel, especially those documents that the new counsel cannot obtain from the electronic docket, such as discovery requests.
5. The Committee encourages courts to inquire as to self-represented litigants' receipt of emailed documents and to exercise their discretion under the Committee's July 15, 2020, comments regarding alternative methods of service where appropriate.
Committee Comment
(July 15, 2020)
When a self-represented litigant has provided an e-mail address to the court pursuant to subparagraph (b), courts retain discretion to determine if an alternative method of service of documents or notices, either in addition to or instead of e-mail, is needed.
Committee Comment
December 9, 2015
In amending Rule 11 to provide for e-mail service, the Committee considered whether special additional rules should apply to documents served by e-mail, e.g., specified file formats, scan resolutions, electronic file size limitations, etc. The Committee rejected such requirements in favor of an approach which provides flexibility to adapt to evolving technology and developing practice. The Committee further anticipates good faith cooperation by practitioners. For example, if an attorney serves a motion in a format which cannot be read by the recipient, the Committee expects the recipient to contact the sender to request an alternative electronic format or a paper copy.
Committee Comment
December 21, 2012
New subparagraphs (b)(6) and (7) were created to allow for service of documents electronically. The amendments facilitate electronic communications among the court, parties, and counsel and complement the expansion of e-filing in the trial courts. However, electronic service may not be appropriate in all instances. For example, absent a secure method for electronic service of documents, other service options should be used for cases or documents filed confidentially.
Committee Comments
(December 29, 2009)
The rules on service and filing have been revised to provide for sending documents via third-party commercial carrier. Under these rules, the term "delivery" refers to all the carrier's standard pick-up methods, such as dropping a package in a UPS or FedEx box or with a UPS or FedEx contractor.