Services go online

August 4, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Goodbye paper, hello keyboard.

The Indiana Appellate Clerk’s Office has launched a new site for attorneys and judges to maintain their licenses and update other information. We wrote about the new portal in our latest issue of Indiana Lawyer.

I’m curious if you’ve had a chance to take a look at the site.  What are your thoughts about doing everything online? Do you prefer to get notifications via email instead of letters? Are there any downsides to this new system? Let us know what you think about the changes.

  • Online Atty Registration
    I used the site and it worked fine. However, I would be able to open a letter, write a check, and return mail faster than working through the site requirements. As usual, time and efficiency take a back seat to a "new technical" approach. Great for the provider (Clerk of Court) but more time for end user. Be aware that I am over 50 and may be a little biased when I am told the new way is so much "better"! Right! LOL
  • e-check mechanism needs tweaking
    I have no great problem with an online payment setup, but I think the e-check setup needs some work. I tried entering my routing and account number twice, to no avail.
  • Bugs in system
    The first time I tried, the Clerk's portal system was down, and I was told to wait an hour and try again. After I opened the site and paid by credit card, I was not allowed to enter my email address to get a receipt. The current system will not accept email addressess over 30 characters to return a receipt. I was told this will be increased to 50 within 30 days. I had to use my personal email address to receive a receipt, and it did not list who the payee was.

Post a comment to this story

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
  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?