What changed
- Self-represented parties must affirmatively consent in writing to electronic service.
- That consent cannot be inferred from conduct, unlike service between represented parties.
- Service between represented parties operates under the usual, broader consent rule.
What the rule requires
California Rule of Court 2.251(c)(3)(B) requires a self-represented party to affirmatively consent in writing before another party may serve them electronically. This is not a new amendment — the distinction has been in place for some time — but it is one many firms' standard service practices do not account for.
Service between represented parties, where consent can be inferred more broadly, is unaffected by this distinction.
Why this matters more than it sounds
Service defects are unglamorous and expensive. A document that was not validly served may not start a clock, and discovering that months later can undo work that depended on it.
The exposure sits with firms that have a standing template assuming electronic service, and that occasionally act against self-represented opponents — which is most litigation practices.
What to check
Whether your service templates distinguish between represented and self-represented recipients, and whether your file opening process records how consent was obtained where it applies.
Who this affects
- Litigation practices serving self-represented opponents
- Self-represented parties, who should be asked to consent to electronic service explicitly and in writing
- Anyone relying on a service date to calculate a deadline
Source & how to verify
California Rule of Court 2.251 and the advisory committee comment accompanying it.
Read the rule itself, not a summary, before changing a service practice — and check whether local rules add requirements. Confirm you are reading the current version of the rule, since court rules are amended from time to time.