ILNews

Appellate Clerk's Office no longer sending rulings via the Postal Service.

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Appellate attorneys no longer receive a mailed hard copy of any order issued by Indiana's highest courts. Instead, those lawyers are now receiving documents in an e-mail.

In a measure to not only cuts costs but prepare the legal community for an even broader e-system, the Indiana Appellate Clerk's Office in mid-January stopped a practice it's had since 1817: mailing appellate decisions to attorneys and pro se litigants.

Just before the change took effect Jan. 21, Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard mentioned the topic in his annual State of the Judiciary and told lawmakers it would save the state about $39,000 this year alone. The new practice is also helping pave the way for a comprehensive appellate case management system, which is still being explored.

"We're not yet a paperless clerk's office, but a paper-based clerk's office trying to reduce paper and costs," said Appellate Clerk Kevin Smith. "We hope and intend to have an entirely new electronic case management system, and this is an interim step toward that bigger picture using our current system until we have the ability to acquire a new one."

Last fall, the Indiana Supreme Court changed Rule of Appellate Procedure 26 to dictate that all orders, opinions, and notices would be sent to attorneys by e-mail, and that pro se parties can opt to receive these documents the same way.

That change went into effect Jan. 1, but the clerk's office has been working since last fall on this. That meant confirming and double-checking e-mails and contact information for thousands of attorneys appearing in pending appellate cases, Smith said. Earlier in the year, the annual attorney registration statement asked attorneys to submit their e-mail addresses. Then in mid-December, Smith said about 206 letters were sent to attorneys who'd appeared in about 484 pending cases but didn't have a listed e-mail address. At the end of the year, a confirmation e-mail was sent to each attorney in every appeal requesting them to reply to confirm that e-mail address. This involved 2,172 attorneys in approximately 6,820 cases.

The e-mail asked them to simply hit reply, and to make sure they had their e-mail accounts set to not filter court orders into spam folders and that attachments of court documents could be received without a problem. Most of the e-mails got through without any issues, but the clerk's office did find some e-mail addresses that had been entered incorrectly or discontinued, Smith said. The staff also worked with firms that were changing domain names - which might influence the attorneys' abilities to properly receive the e-mailed court documents - and some firms whose firewalls blocked the e-mails.

Now, when attorneys enter appearances, the system will generate an e-mail confirming their contact information. If that e-mail isn't replied to after a certain time or it bounces back, the clerk's office will contact the attorney to verify if it was received or that the e-mail address is correct. Each e-mail sent and received is considered part of the court record, so they are docketed and placed in the case files. Heavy users of the appellate system - such as the Indiana Attorney General's Office and State Public Defender - will be put on a list so they don't receive e-mails for every new appearance, Smith said.

Currently, the state allows only one e-mail address to be included for each attorney, but Smith said the office and information technology department is exploring how to allow for multiple singleperson addresses. They can already ask that paralegals or assistants be included to receive orders.

Overall, Smith said the changeover didn't cost the state any taxpayer money except what was spent in staff time working to put the system in place.

"Getting to this point has been the greatest undertaking, but moving forward from here is much easier," Smith said. "We've done the best we can within the limitations of what we have now."

Appellate IT Director Robert Rath, who started in early 2009, has been working not only on this issue and other routine daily tasks, but he also is working behind the scenes to evaluate the current appellate IT system, what's needed, and how it could be created. That has involved looking to what other states have done, as well.

While this summer state officials will begin evaluating what to submit for the next biennium budget, Rath indicated that may be the time to start seeking any proposals or at least send notices about the state's interest in pursuing a new comprehensive appellate IT system.

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. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  2. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  3. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  4. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  5. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

ADVERTISEMENT