ILNews

2 county court systems get e-filing approval

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Two of Indiana's largest counties are getting close to putting electronic filing plans into place after receiving a green light from the Indiana Supreme Court late last year and early this year for pilot projects.

A key goal of the separate pilot projects in Lake and Marion counties is to push certain cases online and eliminate the paper-based filing method. The aim is to make the court systems more efficient overall. Both are set up to be limited trial projects, but the prediction is that they will help set the tone for all courts someday using a paperless filing system.

In both counties, registered users must sign an agreement and pay fees to use the e-filing and service system. Both counties also offer a way for pro se litigants to use the new system, and opt-out provisions can be used for those not wanting to go paperless at this time.

Under the leadership of Circuit Judge Lorenzo Arredondo and Superior Judges Jeff Dywan and John Pera, the Lake County judiciary first filed a plan in June 2007 targeting e-filing for mortgage foreclosure cases randomly assigned to each court. Delays and amendments pushed the launch date back, and the judiciary submitted a new proposal in June 2009 for the Supreme Court's review. Lake County will use a self-contained system to file and serve documents using its CourtView case management system and through the online docket.

The Supreme Court granted Marion County's proposal submitted last year. It's believed to be the state's first e-filing pilot program targeted initially at foreclosure and collection cases that represent a large chunk of the civil judges' dockets. Thirteen courts will allow for the e-filings. A 91-page project report posted online at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/marion/docs/efiling021910.pdf describes the details of the plan, which is being tweaked locally before it takes effect later this year.

Marion Superior Judge Heather Welch led that initiative, along with some of her colleagues on the bench. She told Indiana Lawyer that this is no different for attorneys and litigants than coming into court to file regular paper documents and putting them into a file by hand. Computer terminals will be set up in the county clerk's office for public access.

LexisNexis is responsible for the electronic filing and serving, and the costs are $35 per collections case and $55 per mortgage foreclosure case, according to the project's pricing sheet. Fees are also included for any offline mail service delivery.

This has been in the works for years, with the county's judiciary and Indianapolis Bar Association exploring the e-filing possibility to tackle the growing number of mortgage and foreclosure cases. In the past few years, the number of those cases has increased steadily, and respectfully represent 50 and 58 percent of the civil judges' dockets, Judge Welch said. Tackling those cases will have the most impact on the overall caseloads, she said.

"The judges and the clerk ... have determined that an electronic filing system would advance efficiency in the Clerk's offices and the courts, and that members of the public and bar would be well served by such a system," the project plan says.

Similar systems have been implemented on a statewide basis in places like Colorado and Delaware, which have implemented either voluntary or mandatory e-filing.

Educational and training seminars for attorney, law firm, and court participants are expected in the coming weeks, according to the schedule. After three months, an E-File Advisory Committee will meet to discuss and document the project's progress. That group will also be responsible for evaluating and assessing the project and potential expansion.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT