ILNews

Court: Slow start for optional e-filing

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Marion Superior Courts have fully implemented e-filing for civil collections and mortgage foreclosure cases, but law firms and attorneys are not en masse embracing the change that’s currently a voluntary choice.

Launched in May, the e-filing program being managed by LexisNexis File & Serve has seen about 6,103 total MF and CC cases filed as of the four-month mark Sept. 17, and 995 of those – or 16.3 percent – have been e-filed. Court administration estimates that about 1,900 cases will have been e-filed by year’s end.

But the court hopes that more attorneys and law firms will get involved, and court administrators say they are encouraged by the Indianapolis Bar Association’s enthusiasm about the project and free training being offered. Though the system is currently optional, those leading the Marion Superior project say it will likely become mandatory at some point.

This e-filing project is similar to one that also began earlier this year in Lake County, though that one involves an internally created court system. Similar systems have been implemented on a statewide basis in places like Colorado and Delaware, which have implemented either voluntary or mandatory e-filing.

The Indiana Supreme Court had approved local rules earlier this year allowing for the Marion Superior e-filing project. Those rules can be found at www.in.gov/judiciary/marion/docs/efiling021910.pdf.
 

Rehearing "2 county court systems get e-filing approval" IL March 31-April 13, 2010

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT