Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Yes, but the authorization to file electronically applies for all attorney filed documents without the ECD document. It also provides consent for electronic notices.
If the authorization to file electronically reflects that it is a
certification that the attorney has signed the document and that all other documents (like the proof of service by secretary), and any client
signatures/opposing counsel signatures, have been obtained, then NO EFD is required ever
again.
Attorneys would still be required to maintain the original
documents/signatures on file.
Very truly yours,
Shai Oved
The Law Offices of Shai Oved
7445 Topanga Cyn. Blvd., Suite 220
_Canoga Park, California 91303_ (x-apple-data-detectors://0/0)
Tel: _(818) 992-6588_ (tel:(818)%20992-6588)
Fax: _(818) 992-6511_ (tel:(818)%20992-6511)
Email: ssoesq@aol.com
_www.shaioved.com_ (http://www.shaioved.com/)
________________
The information contained in this email is intended only for the
individual or entity named above and may contain attorney privileged and
confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copy of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this
communication in error, please immediately notify us by the telephone number above
and return any hard copies to us via the postal service.. The Law Offices of
Shai Oved is a debt relief agency which helps people file for bankruptcy
under the Bankruptcy Code. Shai Oved is a Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.
In a message dated 11/11/2016 12:48:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
The ECF Dec says (among other things) documents were actually signed and we
have those holographic signatures on file. If we do away with this one
signed and scanned document, it seems to follow we'd have to provide those
holographic signatures, resulting in more scanned documents, not fewer.
That's how life was before ECF.
Hale
________________________________

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

But it's contrary to every other district, at least in this state.
On 11/11/2016 12:48 PM, 'Hale Andrew Antico' bk.lawyer@gmail.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
> The ECF Dec says (among other things) documents were actually signed and we
> have those holographic signatures on file. If we do away with this one
> signed and scanned document, it seems to follow we'd have to provide those
> holographic signatures, resulting in more scanned documents, not fewer.
> That's how life was before ECF.
>
> Hale
> ________________________________
>
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 12:32 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Re: ecf Declaration
>
>
>
>
> Wait a minute. Is the alternative that we would have to scan signatures on
> each page? In other districts there is no ECF Declaration required and all
> the client's signatures are "/s/ NAME" just like the attorney's.
>
> I thought what they were contemplating doing was eliminating the Declaration
> requirement to allow attorneys to insert the /s/ for the clients. Of course
> you still have to maintain the original signatures in your file, but it
> makes no sense to required the client's signatures on everything. No other
> district requires that of which I am aware.
>
>
>
>
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed in this communication.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

The ECF Dec says (among other things) documents were actually signed and we
have those holographic signatures on file. If we do away with this one
signed and scanned document, it seems to follow we'd have to provide those
holographic signatures, resulting in more scanned documents, not fewer.
That's how life was before ECF.
Hale
________________________________

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I think the question posed was whether we should do away with the EFD
entirely. I say yes.
This would avoid scanning entirely. Any attorney who files a document
electronically essentially certifies that the document is being filed with appropriate signatures.
In some courts, no signature is required at all, no /s/ , /s/ name, nor holographic signature.
By avoiding scanning, the print to PDF feature, saving as a PDF, or
publishing as a PDF, keeps the document in a searchable form without scanning and
then converting with an OCR software.
If a dispute arises as to the propriety of the signing, it would be on the attorney who electronically filed to confirm and produce the signed page orthe approval of the signatures. (Some courts require a statement on the document as to non-filing parties to certify that as to those signatures,
they have also been approved).
Very truly yours,
Shai Oved
The Law Offices of Shai Oved
7445 Topanga Cyn. Blvd., Suite 220
_Canoga Park, California 91303_ (x-apple-data-detectors://0/0)
Tel: _(818) 992-6588_ (tel:(818)%20992-6588)
Fax: _(818) 992-6511_ (tel:(818)%20992-6511)
Email: ssoesq@aol.com
_www.shaioved.com_ (http://www.shaioved.com/)
________________
The information contained in this email is intended only for the
individual or entity named above and may contain attorney privileged and
confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copy of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this
communication in error, please immediately notify us by the telephone number above
and return any hard copies to us via the postal service.. The Law Offices of
Shai Oved is a debt relief agency which helps people file for bankruptcy
under the Bankruptcy Code. Shai Oved is a Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
by The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.
In a message dated 11/11/2016 11:32:53 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
I would agree with Gerald on this point. EFD is convenient for filing theoriginal petition, schedules and related documents and the commencement ofa case.
Roland Kedikian, Esq.
Bankruptcy Attorney
220 S. Kenwood St. Ste 310
Glendale CA 91205
818 409 8911
_http://www.KedikianLaw.com/_ (http://www.kedikianlaw.com/)
I think the question posed was whether we should do away with the EFDentirely. I say yes.

This would avoid scanning entirely. Any attorney who files a document
electronically essentially certifies that the document is being filed withappropriate signatures.

In some courts, no signature is required at all, no /s/ , /s/ name, nor
holographic signature.

By avoiding scanning, the print to PDF feature, saving as a PDF, or
publishing as a PDF, keeps the document in a searchable form without scanning
and then converting with an OCR software.

If a dispute arises as to the propriety of the signing, it would be on the
attorney who electronically filed to confirm and produce the signed page or the
approval of the signatures. (Some courts require a statement on the
document as to non-filing parties to certify that as to those signatures, they
have also been approved).

Very truly
yours,Shai OvedThe Law Offices of Shai Oved7445 Topanga Cyn. Blvd.,
Suite 220 Canoga Park,
California 91303Tel: (818)
992-6588Fax: (818)
992-6511Email: ssoesq@aol.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Wait a minute. Is the alternative that we would have to scan
signatures on each page? In other districts there is no ECF
Declaration required and all the client's signatures are "/s/ NAME"
just like the attorney's.
I thought what they were contemplating doing was eliminating the
Declaration requirement to allow attorneys to insert the /s/ for the
clients. Of course you still have to maintain the original
signatures in your file, but it makes no sense to required the
client's signatures on everything. No other district requires that
of which I am aware.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
On 11/11/2016 10:04 AM, 'Frank X. Ruggier' frank@ruggierlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I would agree with Gerald on this point. The EFD is really
> convenient for filing the original petition, schedules and related
> documents and the commencement of a case. Otherwise, we will be
> forced to scan each of the dozen or so signature pages and insert
> these in with the rest of the documents that our software put
> together. The other option would be to scan together all 60 or so
> pages which would also be an pain and less than ideal. I never
> use the EFD after the initial filing of the case, because I don’t
> see that it makes much sense to do so. If debtor can sign the
> EFD, why can’t the debtor just sign the document that you are
> filing. So, I would vote to keep the EFD only for the initial
> filing and get rid of it for all other filings.
>
> Frank X. Ruggier, Esq.
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist *
> 15545 Devonshire Street., Suite 110
> Mission Hills, CA 91345
> Tel: (818) 796-3529
> Fax: (818) 561-3909
>
> * certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal
> Specialization
>
> http://ls.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx? ... %3d&tabid2
>
> *From:*cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 11, 2016 9:50 AM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Re: ecf Declaration
>
> Filing a petition involves about 14 signatures. Filing one
> document is MUCH more efficient than scanning all the original
> signatures. After the petition and related docs have been filed,
> it is more efficient to use scanned signatures.
>
> In addition, the EFD reminds counsel and parties of their duty to
> retain originally signed documents for 5 years.
>
> So: as part of the petition, keep it. Otherwise, not.
>
> Gerald McNally
>
> Gerald McNally
>
> McNally & Associates, P.C.
>
> 316 E. Broadway, Suite B
>
> Glendale, CA 91205-1011
>
> 818-507-4100, Fax 818-507-5001
>
> www.geraldmcnally.com
>
> MA New Card
>
> Notice to Recipient: This email is meant for only the intended
> recipient of the transmission and may be a communication
> privileged by law. If you received this email in error, review,
> use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is
> strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by
> return email and please delete this message and any and all
> duplicates of this message. Thank you in advance for your
> cooperation.
>
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

For all the reasons stated below, I also agree.
Webblaw@Gmail.com
Best regards
Larry Webb
California Board of Legal Specialization
Certified Specialist in Bankruptcy Law
State Bar of California 229344
Central District California
"A Debt Relief Agency"
Check out my Blog
Map Location
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I would agree with Gerald on this point. EFD is convenient for filing
the original petition, schedules and related documents and the
commencement of a case.
Roland Kedikian, Esq.
Bankruptcy Attorney
220 S. Kenwood St. Ste 310
Glendale CA 91205
818 409 8911
http://www.KedikianLaw.com/

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I have mixed feelings, on one hand they are a nuisance. On the other hand,
having it ensures attorneys have reviewed what they are filing with their
clients, including amendments etc. That is what it is intended to do.
Howver, Having just stepped into a case where the attorney never reviewed
with client changes made and just copied old ecf declaration with new dates
(Judge Jury noticed the attorney used same signec ecf declaration 3 times,
and attorney lied in court), I guess the ecf declaration made no
difference.
I think it helps the Debtor and keeps attorney from filing something that
debtor hasn't reviewed. Nuisance yes, but maybe necessary.
Craig J Beauchamp
On Nov 10, 2016 4:43 PM, "jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> I am advised that there has been some discussion among the judges about
> getting rid of the ecf Declaration form. The idea is that it seems to be
> unnecessary.
>
>
> I have been asked to inquire whether anyone has any thoughts on whether we
> should keep it or scrap it. What is the downside to getting rid of it?
> Now is the time to speak up.
>
>
I have mixed feelings, on one hand they are a nuisance.are filing with their clients, including amendments etc. That is what it is intended to do.
Howver, Having just stepped into a case where the attorney never reviewed with client changes made and just copied old ecf declaration with new dates (Judge Jury noticed the attorney used same signec ecf declaration 3 times, and attorney lied in court), I guess the ecf declaration made no difference.
I think it helps the Debtor and keeps attorney from filing something that debtor hasn't reviewed. Nuisance yes, but maybe necessary.
Craig J Beauchamp

On Nov 10, 2016 4:43 PM, "jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa]" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I am advised that there has been some discussion among the judges about getting rid of the ecf Declaration form. The idea is that it seems to be unnecessary.I have been asked to inquire whether anyone has any thoughts on whether we should keep it or scrap it. What is the downside to getting rid of it? Now is the time to speak up.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}
Me too.
Stella Havkin

-----Origa]" Sent: Nov 11, 2016 10:04 AM To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Re: ecf Declaration
I would agree with Gerald on this point. The EFD is really convenient for filing the original petition, schedules and related documents and the commencement of a case. Otherwise, we will be forced to scan each of the dozen or so signature pages and insert these in with the rest of the documents that our software put together. The other option would be to scan together all 60 or so pages which would also be an pain and less than ideal. I never use the EFD after the initial filing of the case, because I dont see that it makes much sense to do so. If debtor can sign the EFD, why cant the debtor just sign the document that you are filing. So, I would vote to keep the EFD only for the initial filing and get rid of it for all other filings.
Frank X. Ruggier, Esq.Certified Bankruptcy Specialist *15545 Devonshire Street., Suite 110Mission Hills, CA 91345Tel: (818) 796-3529Fax: (818) 561-3909
* certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 9:50 AMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: [cdcbaa] Re: ecf Declaration

Filing a petition involves about 14 signatures. Filing one document is MUCH more efficient than scanning all the original signatures. After the petition and related docs have been filed, it is more efficient to use scanned signatures.
In addition, the EFD reminds counsel and parties of their duty to retain originally signed documents for 5 years.
So: as part of the petition, keep it. Otherwise, not.
Gerald McNally
Gerald McNally
McNally & Associates, P.C.
316 E. Broadway, Suite B
Glendale, CA 91205-1011
818-507-4100, Fax 818-507-5001
www.geraldmcnally.com
Notice to Recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission and may be a communication privileged by law. If you received this email in error, review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message and any and all duplicates of this message. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I would agree with Gerald on this point. The EFD is really convenient for
filing the original petition, schedules and related documents and the
commencement of a case. Otherwise, we will be forced to scan each of the
dozen or so signature pages and insert these in with the rest of the
documents that our software put together. The other option would be to scan
together all 60 or so pages which would also be an pain and less than ideal.
I never use the EFD after the initial filing of the case, because I don't
see that it makes much sense to do so. If debtor can sign the EFD, why
can't the debtor just sign the document that you are filing. So, I would
vote to keep the EFD only for the initial filing and get rid of it for all
other filings.
Frank X. Ruggier, Esq.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist *
15545 Devonshire Street., Suite 110
Mission Hills, CA 91345
Tel: (818) 796-3529
Fax: (818) 561-3909
* certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

The post was migrated from Yahoo.