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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT