[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [courtfiling-process] NEWBusinessProcessesMappedToCourtLink_draft.xls uploaded
I may be traveling in mountainous terrain during the time of the conference call and may have trouble connecting to the 4 pm call. My apologies if that can not be avoided. I did want to comment on one item in Roger's Process model Page 7, item 2. The entries read: Process: 1) Event: (3.14.3-optional) System creates and files certificate of service for a document [if?]it has been electronically served on a party participating in electronic filing Sending Agency: “System” Condition: Electronic service has been completed (successfully or not) by system upon specified party to case Document: Certificate of Service Receiving Agency: Court/clerk Perhaps I missed it, but there is a functional difference between a certificate of service to counsel and parties for responsive pleadings, but this is not the same as a Summons and formal Service of Process on a party for the court to gain jurisdiction. The name I have encountered in many jurisdictions includes "Return of Service or Affidavit of Service. This is a show stopping document. The case cannot proceed without this original Service (or consent), and a default judgment can be issued. "Certificate of Service" in the Federal system and many states is a statement signed by a lawyer confirming he/she has mailed a copy of the pleading to the other lawyers and parties. If you go to this level of detail, I suggest two separate line items clearly distinguishing these very different confirmations of "Service." They are confusing but the difference between the two is huge. As this appears to be the only mention of service in the table, this distinction needs clarification if not separation. On a broader level, you may want to consider a different branch in the work flow for activities which initiate a case vs. filing responsive pleadings. In the work flow diagrams I helped create for the DoJ eFile Study, we found many unique activities that only took place when starting a case, compared to routine filings after the case has started. You also need to factor in a condition where a eFiling may be automatically routed to another entity, such a Judge's Chambers, Parole and Probation, Assignment Offices (for scheduling) or to a Sheriff's, Marshal's or Constable' or other Process Server. It some instances the eFile must be printed and forwarded. This might well occur inside the CMS system and may not be within the purview of eFiling. When I examined the problem at JusticeLink and DOJ, it looked like it could be handled as part of the eFile process. On a format and media level: Shane's use of a spreadsheet vs. Roger's use of Word Table. The Word Table can become very cumbersome. I have had large tables become irretrievably corrupted. Using separate worksheets in Excel works much better. There may be workflow engineering and CASE tools which may be better designed for these types of analysis. If you go with Roger's more detailed approach, which I think is needed, is there any kind of web based process tool to do this kind of work? And lastly, a very picky point: the use of the black background eats up toner. I was running low and lost the header on half my pages. In case I fade in and out as I travel through wild and wonderful West Virginia on a Spring day... Have a great meeting. Jim James I. Keane JKeane.Law.Pro 20 Esworthy Terrace North Potomac MD 20878 301-948-4062 F: 301-947-1176 (N.B.: NEW FAX NUMBER) www.jkeane.com <http://www.jkeane.com> Co-Author and Annual Update Editor of Treatise: Litigation Support Systems, An Attorney Guide 2nd <http://www.westgroup.com/store/product.asp?product_id=16989703&catalog_name =wgstore> Ed. (WestGroup, 1992, updated through 2002) -----Original Message----- From: Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com [mailto:Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:16 AM To: courtfiling-process@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [courtfiling-process] NEW BusinessProcessesMappedToCourtLink_draft.xls uploaded After discussing the draft with Dwight and getting some additional feedback from Tom, I determined that the work I had done was not quite what was needed of me. I have attached a new version of the CourtLink business process for your review. (I am sorry about the very very late hour. I will, of course, bring printed copies to today's meeting). The new document has FAR less detail about CourtLink.. and focuses more on the FORMAT of the document, which is what we had agreed to do at this point. The new document drastically summarizes the filing process, purposely excluding non-success scenarios, optional scenarios, and the like. It has just enough steps to demonstrate the proposed FORMAT of the document, which is based upon the format previously established by Roger and Catherine. - Shane Durham LexisNexis CourtLink
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]