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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT