Indiana Roll of Attorneys site gets makeover

February 1, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Roll of Attorneys website has moved into the 21st century and I like it.

Besides getting a new look to match the rest of the recently updated court website, the search function is much more user friendly. As someone who uses the ROA website daily, I’m pleased that I can now enter the person’s first name along with his or her last to search or find someone through his or her attorney number.

Now, instead of having to wade through the one-hundred-plus names that come up when I type in the last name “Smith,” I’m able to narrow my search to include Smith’s first name.

When the results show up on the new ROA site, they provide more information without having to click on a name. I can see attorney number, admit date and his or her status with the bar, as well as city and state information. When I click on a name, the same information as before is provided, but in a cleaner fashion.

While these updates are great, my favorite has to be that I can use the “back” button on my browser and not lose information. With the old ROA site, I had to click the New Search button and retype the information if I didn’t click on the correct “John Smith.” Now, I just hit back and can select another name.

Take a look at the new site for yourself: https://courtapps.in.gov/rollofattorneys  

Once the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals updates its opinions website, (which looks like it was designed in Geocities circa 1997) I will be a very happy court website user.
 

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
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT