Washington State Courts - Judicial Information System

Search | Site Map |

eService Center

57 - Batch removal of attorney from multiple cases

Request Status Summary

Request Status

Closed

Request Detail

Requestor Name:
	Vance, Aimee R
Origination Date:
	12/08/2010

Recommended Endorser:
	District and Municipal Court Management Association

Request Type:	Change or Enhancement
Which Systems are affected?	Judicial Information System (JIS)
Business Area:	Person Maintenance
Communities Impacted:	CLJ Managers
Impact if not Resolved:	Medium
Impact Description:
Court staff would have to continue to take the time to remove each participant individually.

What is the Business Problem or Opportunity

The DMCMA endorsing group recently endorsed a request to create a batch entry of an attorney to multiple cases. During the analysis AOC asked if there was a need to create a similar process to remove an attorney from multiple cases.

Our group felt it was important, however the initial "batch add" request was priority. This separate request is being initiated for the removal process.

Expected Benefit:

Allow CLJ staff to expedite the processing of Notice of Withdrawals for public defenders without having to go to the CSP screen for each individual case.

Endorsement Detail

Endorsing Committee
	District and Municipal Court Management Association
Endorser Name:
	Vance, Aimee R
Origination Date:
	12/08/2010

Endorsing Action:

Endorsed

AOC Analysis Detail

Analysis Date:	12/17/2010
Request Rationale
Aligns with JIS Business Priorities, IT Strategies & Plans:	Yes
Aligns with applicable policies and with ISD Standards:	Yes
Breadth of Solution Benefit:	Wide
Cost Estimates
Cost to Implement?	378 hours
Projected Maintenance cost?	$0
Feasibility Study needed?	No
Court Level User Group
Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
Approving Authority	CIO

Request Summary:
The courts wish to have a screen where they can enter the attorney’s BAR Number and End Effective Date one time and then enter multiple case numbers on which to add that same attorney as a case participant.
Business Impacts:
This enhancement would allow Courts of Limited Jurisdiction staff to expedite the processing of Notice of Withdrawals for public defenders without having to go to the Case Participant (CSP) screen for each individual case.
Summary of Proposed Solution
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) would create a new screen to allow court staff to remove an attorney to multiple cases on a single screen.
Proposed Solution
AOC would create a new screen to accommodate this enhancement. On the batch remove screen, the user would be prompted to enter the attorney’s BAR number, and the system would echo back the attorney information for confirmation. In order to remove (End Effective Date) the attorney as a case participant, the user would enter a set of case numbers, similar to the batch processing available on the Batch Docketing (BDK) screen.

Confirmation of Endorsing Action Detail

Endorsing Committee
	District and Municipal Court Management Association
Endorser Name:
	Vance, Aimee R
Origination Date:
	12/20/2010

Endorsing Action:

Endorsed

Court Level User Group Decision Detail

CLUG	Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
Chair of Group	Cynthia Marr
Date of Decision	01/11/2011
Decision
Decision to Recommend for Approval	Unamimously recommended to the approving authority
Priority Processing Status	Prioritized
Ranking
Request Importance	Low

Scoring Detail	Score / Possible
Business Value	6 / 10
Relative Priority	5 / 10
Cost	3 / 5
Complexity/Level of Effort	8 / 10
Risk	5 / 5
Benefit / Impact	4 / 5
Impact of Doing Nothing	1 / 5
Total Score	32 / 50

Implementation Detail

Analysis Date:
Implementation Stage	Not Authorized

Comments:

On April 12^th, Jeff Hall and Vonnie Diseth met to consider authorizing requests that had been recommended by the CLJ CLUG under the ITG process. As a result of this meeting, three requests have been declined and AOC is returning these requests to the CLJ CLUG and District and Municipal Court Management Association (DMCMA).

One of the primary purposes of the ITG process is to allocate AOC’s scarce resources to the highest priority requests. AOC will not have sufficient capacity to address the three lowest priority requests in the next year. Because of this, Vonnie has elected to decline ITG requests #36, 35, and 57.

The CLJ CLUG and DMCMA have several options in relation to these requests. If you believe the current priority of these requests do not reflect the true business value in relation to the other requests, the CLJ CLUG can update the priority of these requests. Under the JIS IT Governance policy, the CLJ CLUG can also appeal the decision to the JISC. The final option available is that either the DMCMA or the CLJ CLUG can elect to close or decline the request at this time and reinitiate the request at a future date if the business need becomes more pressing.