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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  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