The Fourth Circuit will let pro se parties take service by email.

The Fourth Circuit plans to change service for consenting pro se parties

The Fourth Circuit plans to amend Local Rule 25(a)(4) on October 19, 2026. The change would let a pro se party who is not a registered CM/ECF user consent to electronic service by email in a pending appeal.

The amendment applies to the court's federal appeals from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. It was announced in a September 23 notice signed by Clerk Nwamaka Anowi.

The court will accept comments through October 9. They may be sent to the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1100 E. Main Street, Suite 501, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or to [email protected].

The scheduled effective date is "subject to revision in light of comments received." The court's published local rules page still identifies Local Rule 25(a) as last amended July 15, 2022.

Before publication, the Archivar editorial desk compared the clerk's notice and attached redline with the version currently posted on the court's local rules page. The actual changes in subsection (a)(4) add non-registered users who consented to email service and add "or restricted" next to sealed documents.

The amendment separates consented email service from paper service

The current rule says that a notice of docket activity generated by the court's electronic filing system constitutes service on registered CM/ECF users. Proof of service is not required for those users.

A party who is not registered must currently be served conventionally, outside CM/ECF, with a copy of any document filed electronically. The filer must provide proof of service under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(d).

The amended text would extend the notice of docket activity to "any non-registered CM/ECF users who have properly consented to electronic service by email." Proof of service would not be required as to those users.

The paper-service requirement would remain for a party who is not a registered CM/ECF user and has not properly consented to email service. Counsel would still need to serve that party conventionally and file proof of service under FRAP 25(d).

The notice does not spell out how a pro se party gives consent. It names no form or other procedure. Practitioners should check with the clerk's office once the rule takes effect rather than assume that an email address alone establishes consent.

Consent will not cover sealed, restricted or initiating filings

The amended subsection also says that a document that cannot be served electronically must be served conventionally outside CM/ECF, with proof of service. The examples include sealed or restricted documents and a new case.

That limitation applies even if a non-registered pro se party has consented to email service. Counsel must use conventional service and file proof for those documents.

Other parts of Local Rule 25(a) will not change. Pro se litigants are not required to file electronically, although the court may authorize them to file electronically in a pending case after they meet CM/ECF registration requirements under Rule 25(a)(1). Registering for electronic filing already constitutes consent to electronic service under Rule 25(a)(2).

Sealed material must be filed under Local Rule 25(c) and served conventionally under Rule 25(a)(7). Under Rule 25(a)(10), the clerk must give notice in paper form to a person who has not consented to electronic service.

FRAP 25 already permits written consent to electronic service

The local amendment works within the current federal appellate rule. FRAP 25(c)(2) permits electronic service by filing a paper with the court's electronic filing system for a registered user. It also permits other electronic means when the person to be served consented to that method in writing.

Service by electronic means is complete when the paper is filed or sent, unless the serving party is notified that the paper was not received. FRAP 25(c)(4) supplies that rule.

FRAP 25(d) requires papers presented for filing to contain an acknowledgment of service or proof of service stating the date, manner, names and addresses. That requirement remains relevant when the Fourth Circuit rule calls for conventional service.

The national rule also addresses electronic filing by unrepresented parties. Under FRAP 25(a)(2)(B)(ii), a person without an attorney may file electronically only if permitted by court order or local rule. The court may require electronic filing only by court order or by a local rule that includes reasonable exceptions.

The Fourth Circuit amendment is narrower than those broader questions. It concerns the receiving side for a non-registered pro se party who consents to email service. It takes effect well before any national rule could take effect.

Proposed national rules would give unrepresented parties broader access

The Judicial Conference's Standing Committee unanimously approved publication of proposed amendments concerning electronic service and filing by self-represented litigants at its June 3 and 4, 2026, meeting. The report calls them the proposed SRL rules.

The package covers Appellate Rule 25; Bankruptcy Rules 5005, 8011, 9006 and 9036; Civil Rules 5 and 6; and Criminal Rules 45 and 49. The proposals are generally uniform across the four sets of rules, with minor differences.

The stated aims are to increase self-represented litigants' access to a court's electronic filing system, or allow electronic filing by an alternative method, and to allow electronic service of later filings through an electronic notice of filing or a court-based electronic noticing program after a complaint is filed and served.

The proposed Appellate Rule 25 would presumptively authorize an unrepresented party to use the court's electronic filing system to file and receive notice of filings. A court could impose reasonable conditions. It could not bar all unrepresented parties unless it provided reasonable exceptions or another electronic method for filing and receiving notice.

The proposal would eliminate the requirement that an unrepresented party filing outside the electronic filing system separately serve paper copies on a litigant registered to receive notice through that system. Service by notice of case activity would not be effective if the filer learned that the filing did not reach the person to be served.

A court could require a different method for sealed filings and filings that initiate a proceeding under Appellate Rules 5, 6(c), 15 or 21.

Public comments on the national package are due through regulations.gov by February 15, 2027. Requests to testify are due December 8, 2026. The proposal must still return to the advisory and standing committees, the Judicial Conference, the Supreme Court and Congress before it could take effect.

Counsel should check consent and document status before filing

For counsel opposing a pro se party in a Fourth Circuit appeal, the operational question is the party's status for that filing. Beginning October 19, if the party properly consented to email service, the notice of docket activity will constitute service and separate proof of service will not be required for that party.

If the party has not consented, paper service and proof under FRAP 25(d) continue. Sealed and restricted documents, as well as new cases, still require conventional service and proof regardless of consent.

Check the docket and the party's status before each filing. Do not assume that a pro se party's email address establishes consent, or that consent for one category of filing covers a document that cannot be served electronically.

How each opposing party must be served, whether by email consent, CM/ECF or paper with proof of service, is a per-matter detail a firm has to track. Archivar, which publishes The Docket, is an operating system for law firms: it answers every call 24/7 in English and Spanish, runs intake, manages matters and remembers everything the firm does.

Confirm the Fourth Circuit's final text on the court's website after October 19 because the amendment remains subject to revision. Firms with appellate matters in other circuits should track the national proposal through the February 15, 2027, comment deadline.

For one class of pro se party, the email replaces the envelope.

For sealed and restricted papers, nothing changes.

The consent is what decides which rule applies.