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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT