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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT