ARTICLE: Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure Should be Amended to Allow for Email as a Permissible Means of Communication Across the Board

The below article of mine was recently published in the August 27, 2026 edition of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly.

Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure Should be Amended to Allow for Email as a Permissible Means of Communication Across the Board

August 27, 2026

By

Daniel E. Cummins

Would you believe, in this digital day and age, that Pennsylvania lawyers, if they so desired, can refuse to communicate via email with other lawyers in personal injury lawsuits? That such an attorney could insist that written communications between counsel be by regular mail or fax only? Sounds absurd, doesn't it?

Well, believe it or not, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure currently allow attorneys to take such a position and some are doing so.

Generally speaking, the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure in this regard do allow for the service, or communication, of legal papers other than original process by fax machines and emails, but only where the parties have agreed to such communication methods or where an email address and/or fax number was included in the attorney’s provided contact information in an entry of appearance or on prior legal papers filed by that attorney in the matter.

It is rare, but some attorneys, having an apparent fear of technology and just to be irksome, refuse to communicate with opposing counsel via email in civil litigation matters. Instead, they insist that all written communications be made via letters sent by regular mail or by fax.

This issue may also come up in other scenarios. Some attorneys resort to utilizing the applicable rules in this regard as a vexatious weapon when they get cornered in one aspect or another in a case. For example, even after earlier communicating in a case with opposing counsel via email, the nonmoving attorney faced with a motion to compel may assert that the motion should be denied on the basis that the non-moving attorney never agreed to communicate via email. Their silly, but possibly hyper-technically correct argument then becomes that they were never properly served with the motion, or even the discovery requests at issue, because the requests were provided to them via email.

Now that we are more than a quarter of a century into the 21st century, the time has come for a change with respect to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the service of legal documents other than the original process. These rules on the permissible methods service of legal papers have become outdated and result in inefficiency and unnecessary costs.

In a land of paperless law offices, where the overwhelming majority of lawyers and their staff, like the rest of society, use email as the preferred form of communication, the Rules of Civil Procedure should be amended to allow for the use of email as a permitted means of communication.

With email as a quick, valid alternative, the archaic requirement under the rules requiring law firms to use paper for the time-consuming and annoying process of printing out letters in order to send them by fax is just silly. Moreover, a requirement that volumes and volumes of papers be utilized to produce discovery responses, medical records, exhibits, or motions and briefs that can be easily and freely delivered electronically is needlessly time-consuming and costly. The need to buy reams of paper and pay postage to send volumes of paper enclosures when such items can be sent efficiently and free of charge via email is totally unnecessary. The time for change to the rules applicable to service of legal papers has arrived.


Applicable Rules of Civil Procedure

Under Rule of Civil Procedure 440, which is titled “Service of Legal Papers Other Than Original Process,” the service of legal papers other than original process is only by way of hand delivery, regular mail, or facsimile. Notably, that Rule does not allow for communication by way of email. As such, it appears that Pa.R.C.P. 440 has become archaic in this digital age where communications by email have become the norm in all walks of life.

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 205.4, which covers the “Electronic Filing and Service of Legal Papers,” touches upon the issue of communications by email.

Under Pa.R.C.P. 205.4(g)(1)(ii), attorneys are allowed to serve documents, other than original process, by fax or email, but only in limited circumstances. That rule provides that email can only be used in civil litigation matters where the parties have agreed to such a communication method or where an email address has been included by the attorneys involved on their entries of appearance or in the contact information included in any prior legal paper filed by the attorneys in the action.

Rules Are Slow to Catch Up With the Times

History shows that the amendments to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure typically take a while to catch up with the change in time of the various types of communication that have developed over the years. Take for example, the rise of communication by facsimile machines. Commentators note that the use of facsimile machines came into vogue in the early 1980s.

Yet, although the use of fax machines became common in the early 1980s, the amendments of Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the service of legal papers other than original process did not allow for the use of facsimile transmission to serve such papers until approximately 1993 in the federal courts and 1998 in the Pennsylvania state courts.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in 1993, which was approximately 13 years after the use of fax machines to communicate became the norm.

It took even longer in the Pennsylvania state courts for the Rules of Civil Procedure to catch up. It was not until Aug 3. 1998, that a specific amendment was made to Pa. R.C.P. 440 to allow for fax communications. At the time of that amendment, service by facsimile transmission became permissible only where the attorneys agreed to utilize that form of communication or where an attorney had provided a fax number in a filed entry of appearance.

Commentators have otherwise noted that the use of email became standard business practice during the 1990s. By the late 1990s, the use of email widely replaced the use of faxes as the commonly utilized form of quick written communications.

However, it was not until several years later until 2001 that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to allow for service by electronic means, including email, provided that the recipient gave written consent to such communications in advance.

As the technology evolved, these Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were further amended to authorize electronic service through the court’s electronic/filing system as a uniform national practice. These amendments took place on Dec. 1, 2018, which was nearly 20 years after the use of email seemed to become the norm as a form of communication in the world.

With regards to the even slower evolution of the separate Pennsylvania state Rules of Civil Procedure, those rules were amended to allow for service of papers other than original process by email only if an email address was explicitly included on a prior entry of appearance or legal paper filed in the action by the recipient attorney, or by the written agreement of the parties. As noted above, these allowances were permitted under Pa. R.C.P. 205.4(g), which went into effect on July 1, 1999.

Currently in Pennsylvania, there are only a number of county courts that utilize electronic filing. As such, there is no uniform, statewide allowance for service of legal papers other than original process through county court electronic filing systems.

In fact, some of the county court electronic systems that have been adopted do not even have a mechanism under which an electronically filed document submitted to the court is also automatically served on the parties involved in the action. This leads to uncertainty in the bar as some attorneys assume that, if a county court has electronic filing, there must also be electronic service of any documents filed on all counsel in all instances.

In the end, since it went effective over a quarter of a century ago, Pa.R.C.P. 205.4 has not been amended to allow for email to be freely utilized as a valid form of communication in all civil litigation matters in all instances.

Using the Rules as a Weapon

While almost all attorneys across the commonwealth of Pennsylvania appear to be willing and able to utilize email as a proper means of communication, believe it or not, there are still some holdouts who still inexplicably refuse to utilize email for communications with opposing counsel during the course of the litigation.

There are also other attorneys who resort to using the technicalities in the current Rules of Civil Procedure to assert, after the fact, that they have not been properly served with legal papers or communications in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure because the document was served by email as opposed to being sent via fax or regular mail.

More specifically, such a scenario can arise when an attorney is hit with a motion to compel and is facing trouble or sanctions in light of the same. Such an attorney, in addition to having already failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure in other aspects, may also resort to asserting that they were not properly served with either the discovery requests or the motion to compel at issue because it was served upon them by email.

Some attorneys making this argument do so, even though that attorney may have already otherwise previously communicated by email for every other aspect of the case. Yet, suddenly, when such attorneys are faced with the threat of a motion, all of a sudden, assert that they never agreed to accept email service of documents. They may also point out that they did not include their email address to their contact information listed in any entry of appearance or previous filing they submitted to the court.

Such hyper-technical positions do not further the proper practice of law and the rules should be changed to prevent such arguments.

Time for a Change

Given that the federal courts have a nationwide rule in place that recognizes email as a valid form of communication and a valid form of service of documents other than original process, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure should also be amended and updated to allow for the same.

Currently, even though the use of email has become universal in both society and the legal field over the past 25 years, the current wording of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides that email is a proper form of communication in civil litigation only if the parties agree to the same or if the opposing party had included their email address in their contact information in their entry of appearance or in some other filing with the court.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure should be amended to make it permissible, across the board, for litigating attorneys to communicate with one another via email, including with respect to the service of legal documents other than service of process. In its present form, the wording of the Rule is subject to possible abuse. Perhaps the Civil Rules Committee of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court can review this need for an update to Pa.R.C.P. 205.4 and work towards such a change.

Furthermore, now that email has become the ordinary means of communication in society, there would be no harm caused by such an amendment. Rather, such an amendment would further the interests of efficiency and the reduction of costs in civil litigation matters. It can be easily predicted that, if a survey were to be taken of the members of the Pennsylvania civil litigation Bar on the topic, there would be overwhelming support for an amendment of the rules to allow for the use of email communications as permissible and acceptable.

Last but certainly not least, an amendment to the above Rules of Civil Procedure allowing for the use of email as a valid form of communication in all aspects of civil litigation would make the rules consistent with recent changes in the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct placing an affirmative duty on all Pennsylvania attorneys to maintain their competence which includes keeping up with the use of technology in the practice of law for the benefit of their clients.

Daniel E. Cummins is the managing partner at Cummins Law in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. He is also the sole creator of the Tort Talk blog at www.TortTalk.com.  Contact him at dancummins@cumminslaw.net.

Reprinted with permission from the August 27, 2026 edition of the "The Pennsylvania Law Weekly © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.

Nursing Home Arbitration Agreement Found To Be Invalid and Unenforceable as Unconscionable

In the case of Blackshear v. Providence Operator, LLC, No. 250102454 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 28, 2026 Carpenter, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s decision overruling a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in a professional liability action regarding a nursing home negligence case. The Defendants, through Preliminary Objections, sought to transfer this litigation to private litigation pursuant to an ADR agreement signed by the Plaintiff’s decedent when he was admitted to the nursing home.

The trial court ruled that the Arbitration Agreement allegedly signed by the Plaintiff’s decedent was invalid and unenforceable where clear and convincing evidence indicated that the resident lacked the capacity to understand and execute the agreement at the time it was signed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 23, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Caleb Oquendo on www.pexels.com.

Court Finds Venue Selection Clause in Medical Provider's Agreement Valid

In the case of McCarney v. Hahn, No. 25084681 (C.P. Phila. Co. Jan. 15, 2026 Carpenter, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s decision to transfer venue in this medical malpractice case out of Philadelphia and into Chester County based upon a venue selection agreement in the relevant documents existing between the parties.

The trial court noted that it had found that numerous signed medical provider venue selection agreements were valid and enforceable given that the contracts utilized unambiguous language. The court also found that the circumstances of the signing of the relevant documents did not indicate any unconscionability.

In its Opinion, the court noted that the medical provider had provided a written agreement that was clear and unambiguous. It was noted that the venue selection clause was not buried in the document or obscured. Rather, the venue selection agreement appeared in a short form and was prefaced by a bolded underlined heading that read, “Pennsylvania Patient Only-Venue Agreement.”

The court also noted that the Plaintiff had signed six (6) other agreements also containing venue provisions which were set forth in separate forms under a section entitled “Claims.”

The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that she had been provided inadequate notice, that there was no opt-out option, that there was allegedly a lack of mutual assent. 

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument of unconscionability based upon the Plaintiff’s alleged physical and mental condition when she signed the documents, including her alleged infertility problems when she signed one agreement and including the Plaintiff being in labor when she signed one of the other agreements.

The court noted that, while the Plaintiff was in labor when she signed one of the agreements, she had previously signed five (5) identical agreements before that particular document. The court also held that the Plaintiff’s infertility struggles did not establish a legal incapacity, mutual mistake, undue influence, or unconscionability.

The trial court sustained the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections and ordered the case to be transferred to Chester County and directed the Plaintiffs to pay the cost related to the transfer. In this Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court requested the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s decision.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 23, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Gabrielle Henderson on www.unsplashcom.

Judge Mannion of Federal Middle District Court Rules in Favor of Consolidated Discovery in Post-Koken UIM Claim

In the case of Alers v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., No. 3:25-CV-01371-MEM (M.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2026 Mannion, J.), Judge Malachy E. Mannion denied a Defendant’s Motion to Sever and Stay Discovery in a post-Koken breach of contract and statutory bad faith case arising out of a motor vehicle accident.

In this case, the Defendant UIM carrier sought to sever and stay all bad faith discovery from the breach of contract claim. The Defendant carrier argued that, through the bad faith claim, the Plaintiff was seeking in discovery the production of privileged information and the carrier’s opinion work product which would prejudice the Defendant carrier in relationship to the ongoing UIM claim.

The court addressed the request for severance under F.R.C.P. 21.

Judge Malachy E. Mannion
Pa. Middle District

In reviewing the applicable factors under this analysis, Judge Mannion found that the claims raised in both the breach of contract claim and the bad faith claim were intertwined. The court also concluded that severance would not promote judicial economy. The court additionally found that there would be no prejudice to the Defendant if the Motion to Severe was denied. 

In terms of any discovery issues with regards to allegedly privileged insurance company documents, the court noted that such concerns could be addressed through incamera review of discovery materials in response to any Motion to Compel rather than through severance or bifurcation or any stay Orders, which would only serve to prolong consideration of various discovery issues.

Overall, the court found that the Defendant carrier had not met its burden in establishing that severance of the claims or stay of discovery with respect to the bad faith claim were warranted. As such, the Defendant’s Motion was denied and this Post-Koken federal court case involving UIM breach of contract and bad faith claims was allowed to proceed through discovery in a consolidated fashion.

Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Jesse B. Hallinan and Attorney Thomas W. Munley of the Scranton law firm of Minora, Krowiak, Munley & Batyko for bringing this case to my attention.

This decision has been added to the Post-Koken Scorecard on the Tort Talk Blog.  The Post-Koken Scorecard is a compilation of many of the Post-Koken decisions handed down by the Pennsylvania state and federal courts since 2009.  The list does not reference all of the cases but is still a comprehensive compilation.

That Scorecard can always be freely accessed by going to www.TortTalk.com, scrolling down the right hand column of the blog to "Post-Koken Scorecard" and clicking on the date under that title.  For now, here is a quick LINK to the Post-Koken Scorecard on the Tort Talk Blog compiled by Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses the Appeal Period for Appeals From Collateral Orders Where a Motion for Reconsideration Was Filed

In the case of Khalil v. Mary Jane Holme Enrich Center, No. 16 EAP 2025 (Pa. Aug. 5, 2026) (Op. by Donohue, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed issues relative to the time period within which an appeal may be filed from the entry of a collateral Order where a Motion for Reconsideration had been filed relative to that collateral Order.

The case arose out of a pro se dispute involving a landlord-tenant matter.

During the course of the case, pro bono counsel who had entered an appearance for the pro se tenant withdrew from the case after the completion of an Arbitration.

The tenant later challenged the withdrawal by the pro bono attorney, arguing that the attorney had not obtained leave of court to withdraw.

After a series of Motions, the trial court ultimately granted the pro bono attorney’s Motion to Withdraw as counsel. That amounted to the collateral Order at issue.

Following the entry of that collateral Order, the pro se tenant filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied.

The pro se litigant then filed a Notice of Appeal more than thirty (30) days after the entry of the collateral Order that had allowed the attorney to withdraw.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed the appeal as untimely. The Superior Court explained that appeals from collateral Orders must be filed within thirty (30) days of the entry of that Order.

The Superior Court also ruled that neither a Motion for Reconsideration nor an Order denying that Motion for Reconsideration tolls or resets the appeal period.

The Superior Court also noted that the Order denying the reconsideration Motion was also not appealable in this case.

Further up the appellate ladder, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Superior Court.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed that a party must file a Notice of Appeal within thirty (30) days from the entry of a collateral Order in order to attempt an appeal. Otherwise, a party must wait until a final Order is entered before any appeal could be filed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court additionally confirmed that the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration, or an Order denying that Motion for Reconsideration, does not affect the thirty (30) day deadline within which to attempt to file an appeal from a collateral Order.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries (Aug. 6, 2026).

Named "LAWYER OF THE YEAR" for Insurance Law in Northeastern Pennsylvania By the BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Directory

 

Proud to note the notification received yesterday from The Best Lawyers in America Directory confirming that I have been named the 2027 "Lawyer of the Year" for Insurance Law in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

The Directory noted that this is a particularly meaningful distinction in that it is awarded to individual lawyers who recieved the highest overall peer feedback in a specific practice area and geographic region.

The Directory also noted that I will be recognized in the 2027 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America for my work in Insurance Law as well as in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants.  I am additionally proud to note that this is the 16th year in a row that I have been so recognized in the Directory.

I am grateful for all of my clients who have entrusted their matters to me for handling and I thank all those fellow members of the bar and the judiciary who have pushed me to provide the best legal services possible.

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Reviews the Law on Wrongful Discharge Claim Under Medical Marijuana Act

In the case of Mauger v. Scranton Hospital Company, LLC, No. 2023-CV-2381 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 5, 2026 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas issued a detailed Opinion outlining the law surrounding a cause of action for wrongful discharge as a tort claim.

This matter arose out a situation involving a hospital nurse who filed suit against his former hospital employer asserting a single cause of action for wrongful discharge.

Judge Nealon's Opinion provides a thorough review of the law regarding an employee's use of medical marijuana any impact of the need for such medication on that person's employment status. 

The Plaintiff cited to the Medical Marijuana Act, which, in part, prohibits an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating or retaliating against an employee based upon the employee’s status as a certified medical marijuana user. The Plaintiff alleged that he was terminated by the hospital based upon a drug screen test that was positive for marijuana that was due to his prescribed use of medical marijuana.

The Plaintiff was later reinstated by the hospital following the filing of a union grievance. However, the Plaintiff subsequent resigned from his position allegedly due to the constant micromanagement and correction by a supervisor.  The Plaintiff later filed suit for wrongful discharge.

The issues in this matter came before the court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the hospital.

Given the presence of various issues of fact before the court, the hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied with respect to the nurse’s wrongful discharge claim.

However, the court did grant the hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment relative to claims of a hostile work environment, and relative to claims of constructive discharge.

The court otherwise also granted the hospital's Motion for Summary Judgment relative to the nurse’s claims for punitive damages and for counsel fees.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of image:  Photo by Budding on www.unsplash.com.