Judiciary ready to move on appellate CMS, e-filing

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state judiciary is moving forward with a plan to establish an appellate case management system, which someday could entail an e-filing system similar to what the federal courts currently have access to.

Late Friday afternoon, the Indiana Division of State Court Administration issued a public notice of contracting opportunity (PNCO) seeking proposals for an information technology system that would be put in place for the state’s appellate system. This move follows the February 2009 hiring of Indianapolis attorney Robert Rath to be the new director of appellate court technology, which was a position created in response to a National Center for State Courts study in 2007 about the Hoosier judiciary’s system.

Currently, the Indiana appellate case management system is one designed and built in the 1980s that has been gradually updated through the years, but largely remains the same. A new system would allow the courts to enter the 21st century, with 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.

“This will be a major initiative for our courts over the next couple years, provided we can secure the necessary funding,” Indiana Supreme Court public information officer Kathryn Dolan wrote in a statement to Indiana Lawyer about the IT updates in recent months.

In the 27-page notice, 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.

In previous interviews, Appellate Clerk Kevin Smith has told IL that a vision is to someday possibly have an online system similar to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records and Case Management/Electronic Case Files (PACER and CM/ECF). The path to that vision could take many forms and much is dependent on available funding and resources.

The notice discusses contractors considering phased development, where some aspects such as Tax Court filings, attorney discipline cases, or a certain type of case could be targeted initially. A launch of the project isn’t yet determined, the notice says.

Companies must submit their proposals and cost breakdowns by 4 p.m. Aug. 20. Questions and updates are due earlier that month, and the timeline following those submissions is still uncertain. The state hopes to have proposal evaluations at the end of September, the PNCO says. Interested vendors can register in advance for a pre-proposal conference set for July 22, by contacting Teresa Payne at or (317) 233-1578. Details about the project and timeline can be found online at the state judiciary’s website.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?