ORDER

WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.

On September 14, 2017, this Court received a letter from D. Campbell Bowman, Jr., appointed counsel for Defendant Eugene Harrison in the above case. This letter purports to notify the Court that Mr. Bowman "will be away from the practice of law" from November 22 to November 24, 2017; December 15 to December 19, 2017; December 26 to December 29, 2017, and on January 2, 2018. According to the correspondence, Mr. Bowman's truancy is based on a desire to vacation with his family.

While it cannot begrudge Mr. Bowman for wanting to spend time with his family, this Court is somewhat confused by counsel's submission. As an initial matter, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia operates on motions, not correspondence, and letters to the Court are extremely disfavored. While some venues are more informal, this forum takes actions in cases based on relief requested in motions submitted by the parties to an action. Mailing requests for relief directly to presiding judges is simply imprudent and ill-advised. The filing of a motion, as compared to the mailing of a letter, allows the Court to create a record. It is from this record that a later observer can piece together the sequence of events that gave form and substance to the legal resolution of the underlying dispute.

Also, Mr. Bowman's rather unusual notice simply declares that unless this Court objects to counsel's proposed absence within ten days, then leave shall be automatically granted. The Court has conducted an exhaustive review of its local rules, but has failed to uncover any provision allowing for members of this bar to unilaterally declare their absence. Rather, Southern District of Georgia Local Rule 83.9 governs leaves of absence from this Court. Furthermore, while this rule states that leaves of absence "may be granted as a matter of course," there is nothing in the rule that would allow counsel to simply declare his absence. S.D. Ga. L.R. 83.9. Apparently, Mr. Bowman failed to read our local rules and submitted his request for leave of absence in conformance with Georgia Uniform Court Rule 16, which allows leaves of absence to be granted where neither opposing counsel nor the court timely objects. Admittedly, it has been some time since this Court has researched the issue, but this Court's understanding is that it is not bound by the Georgia Uniform Court Rules. In any event, counsel should not abandon hope: this Court would be more than willing to consider any requests for leaves of absence that properly conform to the requirements contained in this district's local rules.

SO ORDERED.