| |
1355 - Replace Appellate Court Case Management and E-Filing Systems
|
|
| Request Status Summary |
| Request Status |
In Progress |
| Status Comment |
JISC Priority #2 |
|
| Request Detail |
| Requestor Name: |
| |
Worthen, Tristen |
| Origination Date: |
| |
10/28/2022 |
| |
|
|
Recommended Endorser:
|
| |
Appellate Courts Endorsing Group |
|
| Request Type: |
New System
|
| Which Systems are affected? |
Appellate Court System (ACORDS)
Data Warehouse
Other
|
| Other affected Systems / Business Processes |
Appellate E-Filing Portal |
| Business Area: |
Court Case Management
|
| Communities Impacted: |
AOC
Supreme Court Justices
Supreme Court Clerks
Supreme Court Judicial Asst.
Appellate Court Judges
Appellate Court Clerks
Public and Other Users
|
| Impact if not Resolved: |
High |
| Impact Description: |
|
If this ITG request is not approved and implemented, the courts will continue to use a risky and brittle case management system. The courts will also continue using an underperforming E-Filing system that the courts and public rely on.
|
|
|
| What is the Business Problem or Opportunity |
|
Introduction:
The Supreme Court and the three divisions of the Court of Appeals rely on the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) supported technology to conduct their work. Such work includes, but is not limited to, reviewing and accepting filings received primarily via the E-Filing applications (one for the public and the other for Department of Corrections (DOC) incarcerated individuals), managing their cases (adding case details, case participants, case events, etc.) in the case management system, storing, creating, routing and sending documents using the content and document management system and creating and managing the court calendars which includes sending notifications to parties, displaying the calendars on a public facing website, and managing the confirmations resulting from the notifications.
Current State:
Since 2003, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have been using an outdated, brittle, and underperforming case management system (CMS) called Appellate Court Record and Data System (ACORDS). The courts, along with the public users, are also using an underperforming E-Filing system that is separate from the other applications and requires significant integration and support. Due to the CMS, the courts are unable to enhance it to meet the current court needs. The E-Filing system was built using technology code language that is difficult to support due to the lack of qualified developers available for hire. Using multiple systems with limited integration requires duplication of effort including redundant data entry.
In addition to the inadequate CMS, the courts do not have acceptable reporting capabilities. The courts lack the ability to create reports to better meet the needs of court personnel and case participants. The courts also do not have a robust and modern court calendaring solution to schedule, conduct, and report on court hearings. Today, the courts spend a great deal of time manually scheduling, maintaining and reporting on all court hearings.
Request:
The appellate courts would like to pursue an all-in-one technology solution to replace ACORDS and the Appellate E-Filing Portal.
|
| Expected Benefit: |
|
Benefits include but not limited to:
- Create and easily track cases from e-filing (case initiation) to disposition
- Securely manage highly sensitive data
- Reduce duplicate data entry and improve court productivity
- Give the court users a comprehensive view of case parties and case data
- Give court users and the AOC control of who has access to which information in the case management system
- Integrate with the existing OnBase document management system
- Send appellate court case data to the AOC Enterprise Data Repository
- Provide the court users with a robust calendaring management capability utilizing integrated calendaring and scheduling as well as giving the user the ability to configure hearing notices and printed calendars, and track judicial recusals and hearing confirmations
- Make it easier for the public to see and understand the status of their cases and information regarding their cases
- Give the court users the ability to generate forms, letters and a variety of reports with advanced tools
- Give the court users the ability to search for data quickly using many different search criteria
- Ensure that hearing information, case data and documents are available using existing solutions or utilizing a new portal used by the public, justice partners, etc.
- Give the court users, case participants, justice partners and general public an e-filing solution that clearly informs the filers what they shall file and how. Make it easy for the e-filers to file the documents and make it easy for the court users to review, deny or accept the filings.
|
| Any Additional Information: |
|
This ITG is being submitted by Tristen Worthen, COA Division III Clerk. However all of the Appellate Clerks are in support of this ITG request. They are:
-Erin Lennon, Supreme Court Clerk
-Lea Ennis, COA Division I Clerk
-Derek Byrne, COA Division II Clerk
-Tristen Worthen, COA Division III Clerk
|
| Endorsement Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
Appellate Courts Endorsing Group |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Ammons, Kevin on behalf of the Appellate ITG Group |
| Origination Date: |
| |
02/21/2023 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
|
|
| AOC Analysis Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
03/15/2023
|
| 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? |
$2,000,000 |
| Feasibility Study needed? |
No |
| Court Level User Group |
| Appellate Courts |
| Approving Authority |
JISC |
|
| Request Summary: |
The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals rely on AOC to provide the IT solutions that enable them to record and track cases for direct review and appeal. Cases are primarily filed via two e-File systems , one for public, and one for Department of Corrections (DOC) incarcerated individuals. Case management tasks include entering case information (details, participants, events, etc.), into the case management system. Additionally, case files are created, stored, and routed using the document management system. Court staff also produce reports, create and manage court calendars, notify parties, display calendars on a public-facing website, and manage the confirmations that result from the notifications.
The case management system (CMS) used by the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals since 2003 is the Appellate Court Record and Data System (ACORDS). Modifications to this aging system are prohibitively risky, since changes are known to produce system instability. This risk prevents delivery of needed enhancements, resulting in the inability to meet current court needs. The CMS lacks the reporting capabilities needed by the courts. Additionally, the CMS lacks a modern court calendaring solution that would enable staff to schedule, conduct, and report on court hearings. These shortcomings require court staff to manually schedule, maintain, and report on all court hearings.
The e-File solutions are separate applications which require significant integration and support. They are built on a code base which is difficult to support due to a lack of qualified application developers familiar with it. The e-File solutions lack automated error handling and monitoring capabilities. This requires AOC staff to manually check for and correct issues with e-files on a daily basis.
|
| Business Impacts: |
This change will provide multiple benefits for Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and AOC staff. For example:
• Reduce duplicate data entry by court staff
• Reduce complexity by enabling court users to create, track, and manage cases throughout lifecycle (e-File to disposition) from a singular system
• Simplify court user daily work with comprehensive views of case data and parties
• Enhance security with modern security access controls within the CMS
• Improve court user productivity with OnBase integration
• Improve user experience sending appellate court case data to the Enterprise Data Repository (EDR)
• Increase productivity through the use of modern, integrated calendar and scheduling capabilities
• Improve court user productivity by enabling them to configure hearing notices and printed calendars, as well as the ability to track and manage judicial recusals and hearing confirmations
• Simplify public's ability to see and understand their case status and information
• Improve court user productivity via user generated forms, letters, and reports
• Reduce time to locate information via modern search functions
• Improve customer experience with easy to follow e-File instructions for filers
• Improve court user productivity by simplifying the review, denial, or acceptance of e-Files
|
| Summary of Proposed Solution |
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) would initiate a project to evaluate options and purchase a commercially available “off the shelf” (COTS) technology solution to replace ACORDS and the Appellate e-File Portal.
|
| Proposed Solution |
AOC proposes to purchase a COTS technology solution to replace ACORDS and the Appellate e-File Portal. A project will be established, and an RFP executed to determine a viable solution. Once selected, the project would implement and transition/train AOC and the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals on the new technology.
|
| Additional Systems Affected |
Appellate Court System (ACORDS)
|
| Communities Impacted |
AOC
Supreme Court Justices
Supreme Court Clerks
Supreme Court Judicial Asst.
Appellate Court Judges
Appellate Court Clerks
|
|
|
| Confirmation of Endorsing Action Detail
|
| Endorsing Committee |
| |
Appellate Courts Endorsing Group |
| Endorser Name: |
| |
Escudero, Arsenio |
| Origination Date: |
| |
06/06/2023 |
|
| Endorsing Action: |
Endorsed |
|
|
| Court Level User Group Decision Detail
|
| CLUG |
Appellate Courts |
| Chair of Group |
Appellate Court Group |
| Date of Decision |
06/09/2023 |
| Decision |
| Decision to Recommend for Approval |
Unamimously recommended to the approving authority |
| Priority Processing Status |
Prioritized |
|
| Scoring Detail |
|
In making their decision, detailed score values were not provided by Appellate Courts.
|
|
| Pros & Cons (if vote is not unanimous) |
N/A
|
| Additional Notes |
Ranked as Priority #1. Will need to be authorized by JISC.
|
|
| Implementation Detail
– Superseded
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
|
Implementation Stage
|
Authorized
|
|
Prioritization Option:
|
Prioritized
|
|
|
|
| Implementation Detail
|
| Analysis Date: |
|
|
Implementation Stage
|
In Progress
|
|
Prioritization Option:
|
Prioritized
|
|
|
Comments:
|
|
JISC Priority #2
|
|
|
|
|
