ILNews

Hickey: A change to E-pplaud

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Bar Association's President's Column:


Who says that hard work and persistence don't pay off? Well before the E-Trade talking baby commercials, our local judges were exerting their energy in formulating the framework of a plan to bring efficiencies to court filings. For those of you that have the pleasure of electronic filing in federal court or asbestos cases, you understand the benefits that come with the paperless push. Not so in the Marion Circuit and Superior Courts.

While federal court electronic filing has been around for well over a decade, our state courts have continued to withstand the deluge of legal filings and manual pushing of paper, nearly buckling under the mountain of it. As filings and caseloads have increased, so have the burdens beneath it. One must only look in the courtrooms to get a sense of the need for some E- innovation. It is, finally, here.

Through the concerted efforts of many of our jurists over many years, as well as the IT Director, Marion County Court Administrator and Clerk, the Marion County Circuit and Superior Courts Electronic Filing Pilot Project was approved by the Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration, earlier this year. Local rules relating to electronic filing have been adopted and the Plan and Rules can be found at www.in.gov/judiciary/marion/docs/efiling021910.pdf.

Through this pilot project, E-filing will become a reality on May 17, 2010, for civil collections (CC) and mortgage foreclosure (MF) cases on a voluntary basis. LexisNexis is the third-party vendor who will bring to our local courts the File and Serve tested technology already being used in other courts throughout the country. Although the types of cases are initially limited, the hope is that the success of this program will lead to expansion in other areas, both substantively and geographically.

While some may look at change with trepidation, use of technology to improve the courts will in our lifetime be the legal standard across the nation. In addition to the "green-ness" of crawling out of the paper-age, there exist a whole host of other benefits that come with E-filing. Those were the subject of an article in the ABA Journal several years ago. Everything from improving efficiency and accessibility to cost-savings were cited as direct benefits of converting filings from paper to digital. Once over the initial "hump," E-filing is heralded as a money-saver in the long run. The article also highlights the added benefit of extended filing hours for procrastinating attorneys.

Without sounding like a commercial, the File and Serve site all but makes the case to opt-in for CC and MF cases. Benefits include: improving access to documents and maximizing resources; improving litigation support and gaining added control over case file management; filing and serving with greater ease; monitoring case activity with monitoring tools; and real time access to publicly-available court documents.

Of course, big change never comes without the discomfort of newness. A successful program starts with good training. With that, enter the Bar. The IBA E-Filing Task Force was created to assist in implementation of this project for the benefit of our members. In addition to recent Bar-hosted presentations on E-filing, training sessions in preparation for the project launch will be hosted at the IBA offices in early May. The sessions will be offered over several days and will include detailed demonstrations from LexisNexis representatives on the use of the File and Serve system. Look for additional information in upcoming issues of the E-Bulletin and special notices regarding reserving your spot.

That this project coming to fruition is something to celebrate is an understatement. It represents the hard work and dedication of persistent leaders in our legal community over many years. It is welcome change in the right direction.

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. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT