ILNews

Lake County local rule requires e-filing of certain cases, fee increase implemented

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Beginning July 16, all civil collection, civil tort, civil plenary and miscellaneous cases filed in the County Division Courts Room 2 or 3 in Lake County will have to be filed electronically using the county’s new e-filing system. The change is a result of an amendment to Local Rule 45-A.R.16-17.

Mortgage foreclosure cases filed in the Circuit Court and all rooms of the Civil Division have been using e-filing since Feb. 1, 2010.

A fee increase for attorneys who use electronic filing is also going into effect Monday. The appearance fee per attorney per case is going from $15 to $17.50 and the printing fee required by the clerk has increased to $0.25.

Those who work with or file civil collection, civil tort, civil plenary or miscellaneous cases in the affected courts will need to complete the online docket registration at www.lakecountyin.org and register for e-filing by July 16. Contact Barb Gray in the Lake County Data Processing Office at bgray@lakecountyin.org or 219-755-3635 to register for e-filing.

Any questions on the e-filing changes may be directed to the e-filing support help desk at 219-755-3635.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Is this reasonable?
    My understanding is that each attorney who enters an appearance on even 1 case in Lake Co. will have to pay $200 to register. If all 92 counties adopted this rule the cost would be $18,400 per year per attorney. It is my further understanding the pro se litigants need not pay a $200 fee.

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT