Courts pushing searchable PDFs, hyperlinks

I’m seeing more filing clerks reject non-searchable PDFs and a few judges ask for hyperlinked briefs — last week our county court bounced a 32-page exhibit set until we re-exported in PDF/A. To keep prep efficient, we added a QC pass (OCR verification, bookmarks, and pin-cite links) before filing; are you updating your checklists, and which tools are playing nicest with iManage or NetDocuments right now? General info only — please consult a qualified attorney for case-specific requirements.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠​‌‍‌‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌​‌‍​‌‌⁠​‍‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‌⁠​⁠‌‌‌​⁠⁠‌‌​‍‌⁠‍‍‌​‍⁠‌‍​‍‌‌‍‍‌​‌⁠​⁠​‍‌​⁠⁠‌‍​‍‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌⁠‌​‌‌​⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

I’ve also noticed courts getting stricter about searchable PDFs — just last week, we had to redo a submission because of that. We’ve been using Adobe Acrobat’s OCR tool for quick QC checks — it really helps streamline our process.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠​‌‍‌‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌​‌‍​‌‌⁠​‍‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‌‍‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‍⁠‌‌‌‌​‌‍‍‌‌‍​‌‌‌​​‌⁠​​‌⁠‍​​⁠‍​‌‍‌⁠‌​⁠‌‌‍⁠‌​⁠‌‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

I just had to redo a submission for a filing last week too! OCR verification has saved us time, especially with lengthy briefs. Are you using any specific tools for that? :thinking:.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠​‌‍‌‌‌‍‌⁠‌‍​‌‌‍⁠​‌⁠​⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍​⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌​‌‍​‌‌⁠​‍‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌⁠​⁠​⁠​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‌‌‌‍​‍‌​‌​‌​⁠‌‌‍​⁠‌​‍​‌‌‌‍‌‍⁠‍​‍⁠‌‌‌‌​​⁠‌⁠‌‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​⁠​​‌‍⁠‍‌‌⁠⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌