"Don't forget to wear pants."

The reminder, from an Inn of Court friend, was included in the Zoom meeting invitation to the monthly gathering. Lest we think her admonition unnecessary or an attempt at much-appreciated levity, she included a link to a news story of a Florida judge's frustration with attorneys who have appeared before him—via Zoom—shirtless or still in bed.

Forewarned, properly attired, and prepared for our get-together with a glass of decent sauvignon blanc, I waited for greetings to be finished before asking my question: When we get to the new normal, what changes could the legal system adopt to be less bureaucratic, more efficient, or more responsive?

I made it clear that I wasn't looking for significant policy proposals or ideas that would require legislative action. Instead, I was looking for common sense suggestions that could be implemented by judges, the governor, or mayors. The ideas I heard over the next 90 minutes were supplemented by a score of emails I received from other attorneys and bar associations I had reached out to.

Most of the recommendations fell into one of three categories: (1) interactions with the court; (2) interactions with adversaries; and (3) interactions within one's own firm. Here are some of the most intriguing.

The first—and often repeated—suggestion to arrive was for notaries to continue to be allowed to notarize documents remotely, using video and email. (The Governor's Executive Order allowed these changes only temporarily, and it also quaintly included a fax provision.) Just before the governor signed the order, a resident in my building was so appreciative of my willingness to notarize a document while standing masked and gloved at the threshold of her apartment, that she gifted me a tub of Clorox wipes. I have yet to hear from a notary who disagrees with remote-signing provision, the loss of such beneficent gifts notwithstanding.

The most commonly repeated suggestion involved status conferences—whether preliminary, status, or compliance conferences. Although these meetings typically last between five and 15 minutes, the amount of time attorneys must spend traveling to and from conferences—and waiting for opposing parties or court attorneys—can be hours or days (in the case of out-of-town venues). And many, if not most, in-person "appearances" should be handled via video. In some places—Nassau County was cited by one rather irked lawyer—preliminary conferences involving nothing more than filling out a form with opposing counsel. "Why can't that be done by PDF?" he asked reasonably.

The complaints I've heard about the need to deliver physical paper documents—to the courts and to opposing counsel—could fill a small phone book—if there were still such things. My "favorite" example of an antiquated process involves orders to show cause. Although such orders must be e-filed in most counties, judges won't sign them unless the attorney travels to court to move a physical copy from the ex-parte office to the judge's courtroom.

A more delicate question involves "courtesy" copies.  Even as the courts have moved to mandatory e-filing systems, more than a few judges still require "courtesy" paper copies. As someone who prefers to read paper documents to their on-screen counterparts, I understand. And given the number of submissions each courtroom must receive, it is unrealistic to expect a judge's clerk to print, collate and bind that many pieces of paper. So, for judges—or their law secretaries who prefer a paper copy—why not include an optional "print-at-the-courthouse" button where the filing attorney would pay for the cost paper, ink, staples, and assembly? The cost to the attorney would be offset by the savings of not having a paralegal do the same work—and then having to deliver the physical copy. As publishers learned 20 years ago, the cost of ship-then-print is always lower than printing-then-shipping.

While addressing courtesy copies may not sound urgent, litigants are forced to travel into the office if they need to print briefs, assemble exhibits, and put together FedEx submissions.  Consequently, courtesy copies—which some judges continue to insist on, even during the COVID-19 pause—interfere with work from home and yield non-essential travel.

Service of documents to opposing counsel by methods other than email is another unnecessary burden, and sometimes a game of gotcha. The days of proving service via a postmark should be behind us. As Ilyssa Fuchs, who does plaintiff's civil rights litigation and criminal defense work at Cohen & Fitch, reasonably points out, service on unrepresented parties should be dependent on having the correct email address. But service on any government agency via email should be good service—and agencies should be required to make public the appropriate email addresses. I was recently reminded of a particularly obnoxious opposing counsel who refuses to accept materials sent via email and insists hard copies be sent via mail—which his mailroom regularly (if conveniently) never receives.

Meanwhile, we have heard about government buildings and courts that require original paper filings and submissions, but where FedEx and other deliveries are being returned to senders because the buildings are closed.

It's hard to fathom why any filings must be made on paper these days.

One particular head-scratching example involves New York's Second Department where appeals from Brooklyn can be e-filed, but those from Queens cannot.

Several folks who responded to my inquiry expressed ongoing amazement at how "unfriendly" many court offices and websites continue to be. Mark Goldey, a solo practitioner in New York City commented on the "hide-and-seek" experience he's had with one Appellate Department. Awaiting an adversary's reply brief, he would call the clerk's office once the filing deadline had passed, only to learn that the matter had been rolled over to the next term, thereby restarting the clock. In theory, these deferrals were posted in the Law Journal. Practically, wouldn't it make more sense to post them on the court's website?

Kristen Porro, who practices family and estate planning law in New York and New Jersey, shared the following saga: She stepped in to help, pro bono, a young serviceman who had tried to use the Bronx Court's "Uncontested Divorce" site.  He couldn't figure out whether he had to actually show up at the courthouse to purchase an index number, hire a process server, or which of the 38 different forms he actually had to file. And he couldn't figure whether his $210 in fees could be paid by check, credit card, or money order. "It certainly couldn't be paid by Venmo, the payment vehicle of choice for most 25 year-olds."

We heard from a litigator—who understandably wants to remain anonymous—that at least one federal judge requires telephonic conference calls with him be made from landlines. No one wants to be the attorney to tell his honor that most associates (and many older partners) no longer have landlines.

Not surprisingly, almost everyone commented on the desirability of video appearances—by criminal defendants and civil litigants in routine matters—and perhaps even the possibility of trials by Zoom. When one person commented on the extraordinary step of the U.S. Supreme Court holding argument by telephone, a New York Supreme Court Justice commented that she much prefers video to simply telephonic conferences. "I like to see when people are rolling their eyes."

Underlying so much of the frustration with the legal system is the absence of any real deadlines. As attorney Philip Howard, the founder of the non-partisan group Common Good—and author of Try Common Sense—put it, we have a "public culture of avoiding decisions." We need "to start drawing lines on what is needed and what is not. If officials started acting like Andrew Cuomo, then things will happen."

Institutionally, it is not just the courts that have changed. Both partners and associates of firms large and small have commented that there is a different interaction between attorneys: There appears to be a greater degree of civility and personal concern among attorneys. Let's hope it survives this moment of crisis.

Steve Cohen is an attorney at Pollock Cohen in New York City. Suggestions for future columns can be sent to SCohen@PollockCohen.