[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Bulk updating of attorneys associated with cases
|
It is important that a registry at the EFM take place where all uses register for a specific EFSP and all courts register for an EFM, the challenge now is that California is opening up the path for multiple
EFMs per court. Dallas From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of McMillan, Jim I have seen this issue before as an attorney once asked a court I was working with to have his documents sent to his “beach office” during the summer months and his “city office”
during the rest of the year. There is also the issue with the attorney who works with a firm in one city but they are located in another. And finally, there is an issue with multiple EFSP’s where an attorney is a member of a different one than the filer
(or a government attorney who may be inside the “justice network”.. So, this is where I thought that there is a need for a “directory service” that the EFM should maintain for all the EFSP’s on the front end and the courts on the receiving end? That way there is one place to update that is official that all the systems could in turn consume. After all – it works for the Internet URL service. Jim M From:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Price, Jim Arizona law firms have been clamoring for a solution wherein they are enabled to submit default judgment case information on multiple cases at one time via a system-to-system interface between
their Records Management System and e-filing system. In other words, they don’t want to log into an e-filing system to upload, pay for, and submit documents when they can push a button within their RMS to do the same thing. From:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Eric Eastman We have handled this situation several times. I believe that the ECF communication standard should not get involved in cases like this. The implementations on the FAMDE, FRMDE and CRMDE sides should all be aware that these are valid use
cases, but in these fairly rare cases it is not unreasonable to exchange 1,000 messages rather than add complexity to the standard for the millions of filings that are not in this category. If there is one thing computers are good at, it's doing the same
thing many times quickly.
Eric On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:25 PM, James E Cabral <jec@mtgmc.com> wrote:
-- Eric Dimick Eastman Web: www.greenfiling.com Phone: (801) 448-7268 Cell: (765) 277-4158 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]