FCTC to create way for judges and lawyers to exchange proposed orders
FCTC to create way for judges and lawyers to exchange proposed orders
With most circuits indicating an interest, the Florida Courts Technology Commission is asking that the statewide e-filing portal for the court system incorporate a way for judges and lawyers to exchange proposed orders.
The FCTC, charged with overseeing technology matters for the state court system, voted at its August 7 meeting in Tampa that the Florida Courts E-Filing Authority, which manages the portal, create a way for judges and lawyers to exchange proposed orders.
Such a system has been a bit of a headache because the portal was designed to route filings through county clerks of court offices while proposed orders go directly between lawyers and judges, both by paper submissions and via email. Clerks have been reluctant to become involved in handling documents that don’t become part of the court file, while portal officials have been concerned about the expense of creating a way for the orders to be exchanged, which might not be widely used.
Seventeenth Circuit Judge Martin Bidwill, who chairs the FCTC’s Proposed Order Workgroup, said it surveyed the state’s 20 circuits and found about three quarters are interested in using the portal to facilitate proposed orders. The others, he said, already have a system in place outside of the portal.
“The objective of the whole thing was to create some functionality in the portal where a filer without logging out and going into some other program could simply submit their proposed order to the circuit,” Bidwill said. “It’s not a simple issue, because you’ve got 20 circuits that are on different pages. It’s a big software issue.”
The subgroup’s survey showed there is sufficient interest to justify creating a system using the portal for proposed orders. But it will take some time. The action came too late to be included in the scheduled September update for portal software, so it won’t likely be included until the next scheduled upgrade in April 2016.
“What everyone really needs to understand is when this functionality is added [to the portal], it’s a two-step tango. The portal has it if the circuit wants to take advantage of it,” Bidwill said. “Right now what this is doing is simply creating the functionality in the portal to allow it to occur. Then each circuit would have to link up in the manner which they prefer and at the pace which they prefer, if they want to at all.”
He said that at least for a while there will not be a uniform statewide method for handling proposed orders. Those that don’t use the portal will have their own procedures for handling the orders, and those who do use the portal may have different systems and requirements.
“Dealing with proposed orders is kind of a well-established process and every location handles it differently,” Bidwill said. “We were very sensitive to the local issues.”
Creating a successful pathway through the portal may eventually encourage more uniformity, he said, adding “It’s a step-by-step process toward creating an electronic back and forth between the filers and the court.”
