OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

courtfiling-process message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [courtfiling-process] NEWBusinessProcessesMappedToCourtLink_draft.xls uploaded


Title: RE: [courtfiling-process] NEW BusinessProcessesMappedToCourtLink_draft.xls uploaded
Actually, I wonder if it is appropriate to include the initial service of process in the efiling process template. From the court's point of view, the operable event generally is not the service by a process server, but rather the filing of an answer or other responsive pleading by the served party coupled with the payment of an answer fee. Those simultaneous events stop the ability of a party to obtain a default or default judgment. No way has been found so far to make such initial service of process electronic and so it remains a non-electronic event. Therefore, it seems to me that initial service itself probably is extraneous to the efiling process and should not be included as part of the process document. The way it was initially stated as far as constructing the templates seems to me to be correct, where a certificate of service as between counsel for other pleadings is required. There may be additionally points to cover where the court does the eservice as part of the efilings, which may do away with the need for a certificate of service altogether, but that is probably left as a discussion for another day. Best regards.

 -----Original Message-----
From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:58 AM
To: 'jkeane'; 'courtfiling-process@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [courtfiling-process] NEW BusinessProcessesMappedToCourtLink_draft.xls uploaded

Thanks to Jim for the comments, including the "nitpick" about Word tables and using black background in a header. I'll take those to heart for documents that may be circulating widely. The subcommittee's next steps don't call for further development of the Word document we (both Catherine Krause and I) produced; future work products of this sort should be in spreadsheets such as Shane presented, unless there are better options.

Jim's comments on service are correct -- others have commented on the difference between two types of "service." We were following the "Process Standards," Subfunction 3.14.1-3.14.3, and we didn't make the distinction clearly. We used local terms for a certification that service has happened or been attempted (which the Subfunction calls "a proof of service record") and that could have added to the confusion. Since we are not lawyers, we are grateful there are several around to catch such important details.

Regards,

Roger

Roger Winters
Electronic Court Records Manager
King County
Department of Judicial Administration
516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, Washington 98104
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
roger.winters@metrokc.gov
 

-----Original Message-----
From: jkeane [mailto:jik@jkeane.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:24 PM
To: courtfiling-process@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [courtfiling-process] NEW BusinessProcessesMappedToCourtLink_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]