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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT