ILNews

8 submit proposals for Indiana appellate system

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Eight companies are interested in outfitting the Indiana appellate courts with a case management system with public access and e-filing capabilities.

The Indiana Division of State Court Administration reports that those eight companies from around the country and Ontario submitted proposals by the Aug. 20 deadline. Now, the state will review the documents totaling about 2,000 pages before a public evaluation scheduled for Sept. 30.

The current Indiana appellate system was designed and built in the 1980s and has been updated through the years, but it largely remains the same. A new system would allow the courts the possibility of linking to the statewide case management system known as Odyssey, which is now implemented in about 50 trial courts and 21 counties throughout the state.

But the state judiciary wants to modernize the system to allow for better public access, more internal efficiency, and e-filing that might be similar to what exists within the federal courts.

In early July, the state judiciary issued a public notice of contracting opportunity seeking proposals for an information technology system that would be put in place for the state’s appellate system.

The 27-page notice says the primary goals are to increase the appellate courts’ productivity and overall efficiency with a data-entry system that can produce real-time data validation. One component is to give litigants and attorneys the ability to file briefs and motions electronically and enable trial courts and clerks to file transcripts and records the same way online.

Representatives from 13 companies attended – either on-site or remotely – a conference in mid-July where they could hear details before submitting proposals, according to the Division of State Court Administration.

Those that submitted proposals use one of two software models – either a custom application developed by internal resources, a contractor, or a combination of the two; or commercial off-the-shelf software (COTS) that’s licensed by an independent software vendor and can be configured and personalized.

The companies submitting proposals are:

•    Amicus Group, an Ohio-based company that has implemented 200 systems for local governments in the past decade. The proposal calls for a custom system.

•    Aptitude Solutions, a Florida-based division of Lender Processing Services that describes itself as a leading provider of integrated mortgage, real estate and government technology and services. The proposal for Indiana is the COTS software model.

•    CaseLoad Software, a Toronto-based company that focuses on appellate case management systems and has implemented them in multiple U.S. jurisdictions, locally and statewide. The company proposal calls for COTS software.

•    L-T Court Tech, a New York company that offers court-specific software and has been used to manage 5.8 million filings for its clients that include appellate courts. The company is proposing COTS software for Indiana.

•    New Dawn Technologies, based in Utah, which says on its website that its JustWare software is currently used in more than 200 federal, state, and local courts and law-related offices. The proposal for Indiana calls for COTS software.

•    Sustain Technologies, with offices in California and Colorado, which reports that its products have been used in more than 350 courts in 10 states and three countries during the past two decades. For Indiana, the company is proposing COTS software.

•    TriVir LLC, a Virginia-based privately held corporation focusing on highly customized software solutions for various business sectors, such as government, education, medical, technology, and consumer-focused organizations. The Indiana proposal calls for custom software.

•    Tyler Technologies, a Dallas company that has implemented thousands of government office case management systems nationally and in 2007 secured a contract to implement Odyssey system in the trial courts for all of Indiana’s 92 counties.

Once the proposals are reviewed, the state judiciary expects to evaluate those by the end of September and eventually invite the companies to conduct public demonstrations of what their systems can offer Indiana. After that, final offers would be made before an eventual contract award. No specific timeline has been set for that, but the project is expected to take a couple years and is largely dependent on funding availability.

“We’re very pleased with the response we got,” said Robert Rath, appellate information technology director. “This is a major project for our courts in the next couple years, and we’re looking forward to this.”
 

Rehearing "Judiciary ready to move on appellate CMS e-filing" IL July 21- Aug. 3, 2010

ADVERTISEMENT

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT