The lower courts interpreted the local rule as absolving the Clerk of Courts from fulfilling its mandatory duty to furnish a copy of the order when the local rule is not complied with. As the lower courts did not create the mandatory duty, they are not empowered to negate the mandatory duty by means of enacting or interpreting local rules. In other words, in the absence of some general rule to the contrary, courts are not prevented from requiring that litigants provide addresses or envelopes or even to bear the costs of the court associated with sending orders, etc. Accordingly, the Order of the Superior Court is reversed. This case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Jurisdiction is relinquished.
Messrs. Justice Zappala and Castille concur in the result. 1 The local rule at issue reads as follows Upon the filing of any order, motion, petition, or rule for disposition by the Court, the filing attorney shall provide the Prothonotary with copies of the order, motion, petition or rule and a stamped , addressed envelope for each counsel of record. The Prothonotary shall conform the copies and serve counsel as required by law or rule of court. 2 Appellant asserted in the courts below and in this court that he was unaware of the local rule and its requirements. As the issue of whether a local rule of court conflicts with a statewide rule presents a pure question of law, our standard of review is plenary as with any question of law.