Projects will expedite transcripts, require appellate e-filing in some courts by Aug. 1

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The conversion of three Indiana courts to video transcripts is one of three pilot projects that will start in selected courts in the next several weeks, all of them intended to find ways to make the appeals process thriftier and more efficient.

A second pilot aims to slash the transcript-filing time from 90 days to 30 days by using private transcription services to assist court reporters, and a third will involve electronic filing – either online or on CDs – of the appellate record.

The court pilot projects are looking at “faster, better, cheaper ways of getting the record done,” said Lilia Judson, executive director of the Division of State Court Administration for the Indiana Supreme Court, which is working with the Court of Appeals to implement the projects.

Court of Appeals Chief Judge Margret Robb said that while the pilots are a project of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals will do the heavy lifting.

A panel comprising Judges Cale Bradford, James Kirsch and Melissa May will review all of the cases involving the pilot projects. “Part of that is so there can be a good evaluation of the three projects,” Robb said. “I think this was an attempt to have people who were willing and open-minded with no preconceived idea of what they like and didn’t like, and who could clearly evaluate the pluses and minuses of each,” Robb said.

“The American Bar Association standard and the federal rule both allow 30 days” to file transcripts for appeals, Kirsch said. “Indiana allows 90 days, or three times the standard. In a time of exploding technology, this should be an embarrassment.”

For appeals in which the transcript has been prepared in 30 days, the judges also will track time spent on each step of the appellate process, according to a summary of the project.

Kirsch said Indiana’s steps toward shortening the transcription time are overdue.

“The time period for the preparation of the trial court record and transcript is the longest part of the appellate process and substantially extends the time that litigants must wait for the decisions that will affect their lives,” Kirsch said.

Kofi Anokwa, an Indiana Conference for Legal Education Opportunity fellow interning with Robb, analyzed state laws regarding time allowed for filing transcripts. Indiana is one of just four states allowing 90 days, according to Anokwa’s research. Twice as many states require filing in 30 days or less.

smith-maggie-mug Smith

Frost Brown Todd counsel Maggie Smith is past chair of the Appellate Section of the Indiana State Bar Association and also serves on the Indiana Supreme Court Rules Committee. She agreed the pilots were overdue.

“It’s long been the section’s belief that 90 days is excessive and certainly is not needed in today’s age of digital technology,” Smith said.

The reduction in filing time is complicated, though, by technology that is not uniform across Indiana’s decentralized courts, some of which don’t have digital transcription capability, Smith said. The longer time period to file also is influenced by a culture that tends to use all the time available to prepare and submit court documents, even those that could be done in little time.

“The nature of the practice, whether court reporter, clerk or attorney, is to live within the timeframe allotted,” she said. “That’s even more reason to tighten up the transcript preparation. … People take as long as you give them.”

Smith said Indiana ideally could move to a system limited to 30 days for filing appellate transcripts, allowing requests for extensions in cases where more time is warranted, such as lengthy trials or complicated proceedings. “While I think as a practitioner I and my clients would love 30 days, initially, if the technology is improved, we’d be happy if they cut it down to 60 days.”

Bradford said the pilots also acknowledge court personnel have ever-growing duties, and the effort to expedite transcripts will give them the assistance they need to meet the task by hiring one or more private transcription services.

Electronic record filing also would streamline the appellate process, Bradford said.

“We constantly have conversations here on our court about what it would be like to do that,” he said of receiving the appellate record electronically or on a CD. “This will be an opportunity for our judges to do it and see how they like it.”

Smith said Indiana Appellate Rule 30 already allows electronic filing, but “nobody does it.” It’s not a requirement, and all parties must agree to it.

The appellate section of the ISBA has not opposed proposals that would require electronic filings in Indiana appellate courts, she said. Venues such as the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals already have such requirements.

The court pilot projects appear to be moving incrementally toward ways of doing business that embrace technology that will become prevalent, if not standard, in the future, Smith said.

“It’s preparing people. Ultimately, you’re going to have electronic filing at every level, I think,” she added.

Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson said the video record, expedited transcripts and e-filing initiatives could have wider impact on Indiana courts in time. He said the pilots as a whole are nothing particularly new or alarming.

“We’ve always been concerned about resolving appeals as quickly as possible. We know that it’s a burden upon litigants to have to wait for decisions, and one of the most time-consuming elements is the time it takes to prepare a record,” Dickson said.

Dickson Dickson

Indiana Supreme Court spokesperson Kathryn Dolan said some logistics of the pilots still are being worked out. Those include which courts will be selected to expedite transcripts and file electronically, and decisions should be made soon. The goal is to get the projects implemented in the courts by Aug. 1.

The courts also will be looking for reaction to the projects.

“We are working on a survey for judges, law clerks, clerk of the court staff, and lawyers who will be involved with the pilot project. We will also solicit input from these individuals independent of the survey,” Dolan said.

“We’re interested to see the results,” Dickson said. “We’re keeping an open mind and hope the leaders working on these various projects will produce some recommendations that will make a difference in our ability to provide swifter and more accurate justice.”•


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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  2. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  3. Paul Hartman of Burbank, Oh who is helping Sister Fuller with this Con Artist Kevin Bart McCarthy scares Sister Joseph Therese, Patricia Ann Fuller very much that McCarthy will try and hurt Patricia Ann Fuller and Paul Hartman of Burbank, Oh or any member of his family. Sister is very, very scared, (YES, I AM) This McCarthy guy is a real, real CON MAN and crook. I try to totall flatter Kevin Bart McCARTHY to keep him from hurting my best friends in this world which are Carolyn Rose and Paul Hartman. I Live in total fear of this man Kevin Bart McCarthy and try to praise him as a good man to keep us ALL from his bad deeds. This man could easy have some one cause us a very bad disability. You have to PRAISAE in order TO PROTECT yourself. He lies and makes up stories about people and then tries to steal if THEY OWN THRU THE COURTS A SPECIAL DEVOTION TO PROTECT, EX> Our Lady of America DEVOTION. EVERYONE who reads this, PLEASE BE CAREFUL of Kevin Bart McCarthy of Indianapolis, IN My Phone No. IS 419-435-3838.

  4. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.

  5. I had a hospital and dcs caseworker falsify reports that my child was born with drugs in her system. I filed a complaint with the Indiana department of health....and they found that the hospital falsified drug screens in their investigation. Then I filed a complaint with human health services in Washington DC...dcs drug Testing is unregulated and is indicating false positives...they are currently being investigated by human health services. Then I located an attorney and signed contracts one month ago to sue dcs and Anderson community hospital. Once the suit is filed I am taking out a loan against the suit and paying a law firm to file a writ of mandamus challenging the courts jurisdiction to invoke chins case against me. I also forwarded evidence to a u.s. senator who contacted hhs to push an investigation faster. Once the lawsuit is filed local news stations will be running coverage on the situation. Easy day....people will be losing their jobs soon...and judge pancol...who has attempted to cover up what has happened will also be in trouble. The drug testing is a kids for cash and federal funding situation.