Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

ECF Implementer Sharing Sessions 100311

VIEWS: 12 PAGES: 8

									                OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing (ECF) Technical Committee (TC)

                    Implementer Sharing Sessions (open to non-members of OASIS)

                                                 Minutes

                         October 3, 2011 9AM- 5PM, 10:30 –noon, 1:00-2:00 PM

                                Long Beach Convention Center Room 204

Attendees:

       Jim Cabral, MTG

       Jim Harris, NCSC

       Robin Gibson, MO AOC

       Ron Bowmaster, UT AOC

       Adam Angione, Courthouse News Service

       George Knecht, Green Filing

       Michael Neuren, GA AOC

       Robert Obrien, Canadian Courts (individual)

       Monica Palmirani, University of Bologna

       Jamie Clark, OASIS

       Peter Brown, OASIS

       Jerry Floyd, LA County

       Tania Wasser, Intresys

       Sergei Muskov, Intresys

       Joe Mierwa, URL Integration

       John Greacen, Greacen Associates

       Di Graski, NCSC

       Joe Wheeler, MTG

Recommendations/suggestions for future versions of ECF are highlighted in yellow.
Feedback from ECF implementers and new use cases

Los Angeles County (non-court filings) Jerry Floyd

See detailed remarks from LA County. LA County’s recommendations are summarized as follows:

   1. LegalXML ECF 4.0 cardinality – core filing and subschemas for case types, additional schemas for
      filing review, fee payment, only core filing is designed for filing of a court document, ISAB used
      CoreFiling in ECF 3 for Probation reports, upgrade to ECF 4.01 compromised their use (including
      required fields for Case Charge, Prosecution Recommended Bail Amount, etc.) – required a work
      around with dummy tags, ISAB recommended – TC elected to relax restriction on Prosecution
      Recommended Bail Amount but not Case Charge. LA County recommends a new schema for
      documents other than initial case filings

   2. Redundancy: ECF 4.0 core filing mandates FilingLeadDocument which includes
      DocumentDescriptionText, DocumentSubmitter. These are also required in the
      CoreFilingMessage. ECF does not clearly make the distinction between these. TC left
      FilingLeadDocument unchanged to provide flexibility. FilingLeadDocument includes
      DocumentMetadata and DocumentRendition – ISAB recommends that DocumentMetadata in
      FilingConnectedDocuments should be optional.

   3. Electronic document delivery – ECF should accommodate e-delivery in addition to electronic
      court filing. ISAB recommends ECF include schemas and instructions for delivery without filing
      review.

   4. ECF and NIEM coordination – ISAB recommends that CA AOC adopt OASIS ECF for CCMS. CA
      AOC has not accepted this as jxdm is perceived to be criminal justice-specific. ISAB recommends
      that ECF TC work with NIEM governance to include robust structures for justice, not just criminal
      justice.

John Greacen: Need for Smart documents

Dallas Powell: Smart Forms can be challenging (using Adobe AcroForms) – only one way of ensuring that
XML represents the visual presentation – at some point, the information is no longer editable

US bankruptcy and other federal courts         Jim Cabral

Electronic bankruptcy noticing center run by BAE to appropriate parties and are pdfs with xml metadata

Specific new case types in the federal courts may become additional work for the TC.

ISAB successfully implemented version 3 but version 4 broke implementation. Some required
documents with charge and bail information are not able to be an ideal process.
Redundant elements in filing messages. NIEM core elements repeated request to remove redundant
and required elements unneeded by LA County.

Need to accommodate e-delivery

Need to amplify the non-criminal (appellate bankruptcy, etc.) court elements in JXDM.

    -   Using ECF for embedded XML in PDFs – Recommend: need additional bankruptcy elements and
        change some required elements to optional
    -   Looking at ECF for use in web service interfaces between modules in Next Generation CM/ECF
    -   Recommend: support federal case types

Arizona Courts - Gary Graham

Gary Graham comments and Intresys review. Arizona is in the process and discovering thing as they go
and it is unnerving for them to hear that there is consideration that ECF TC might be done. Arizona
would like to have access to a broader community or distribution of information. Committee should
stay alive for explanation and refinement. Need to balance flexibility with needs.

Need a vehicle to gain access to NIEM that would not be available for a single entity.

Arizona would like to have detailed discussion on LA County’s feedback

Divided Filing Review MDE (between Intresys and courts) using MQ in between

Arizona suggests the division of the Filing Review MDE into 2 pieces (split out clerk review)

Need for a broader community for information sharing between implementers (like LA County)

    -   Inside OASIS or outside OASIS?
    -   George Knecht setup a forum

Recommends that the ECF TC should continue to support expansion and alignment

Balance flexibility and interoperability

LegalXML should maintain NIEM compatibility

LegalXML should continue to provide a way to influence NIEM

Intresys         Tania Wasser / Serguei Mysko

See slides re: TurboCourt

Arizona creating a system for all case types and courts in phases, some in place for 10 months some for
only a few. Using the ECF Spec has improved their design cycle time. New filing types are nearly ready
to be implemented. Items Intresys would like the committee to consider will be submitted formally.
One thing would include acceptance.
Message receipt message synchronous vs asynchronous

Intresys and Arizona

NIEM has very complex structure for identification much of which isn’t used. A simplified model would
be simpler, but ECF has made a decision to be conformant to the NIEM model.

Cardinality continues to cause confusion. Balancing flexibility for interoperability. Relaxing the
cardinality impacts the interoperability. A discussion of cardinality in the best practices would be helpful
to implementers to reduce confusion on how to deal with the cardinality.

Need an e-filing system for all case types and all courts

15 years of integration experience

ECF narrowed down design phase

    -    2 years into the project already implemented ECF 3 in subsequent filings in Maricopa (in 3-4
        months)
    -   Implemented appellate court in 10 months
    -   Getting ready to release initial and subsequent civil filing in Pima County (11/9)
    -   Implementing small claims in Maricopa justice court (mostly self represented)
            o Utter acceptance – no filing review
    -   Flexibility in MDEs worked well with TurboCourt
    -   Will send recommendations (in a PPT)
    -   Capture data in forms and submit a non-changeable copy (Rendered document) for filing
        purposes

Intresys Recommendations:

    -   AZ needs MQ based SIP – need a AZ TurboCourt Messaging Profile
            o MQ transport, no SOAP (unnecessary?), incomplete WSDL
    -   Extension redefines some elements, introduces some new ones
            o Extensions using substitution groups
            o Option 1: Don’t’ create IEPD
            o Option 2: Create one by removing unneeded elements, adding (from NIEM) the missing
                ones
            o Recommend option 1 - that we define our domain and then map those elements to
                NIEM
    -   Schema is huge
    -   Recommend: Message Receipt Message needs to be asynchronous
            o Large filings tie up resources with synchronous MRM for some time
            o Multiple MRMs should be possible to make async updates
            o Should whether MRM is synchronous or asynchronous be dependent on the SIP?
    -   Simplify multiple identifications
    -   Split clerk review as a separate MDE or service –see Gary’s recommendations
    -   Provide best practices around cardinality

Filing Review models

        1. e-delivery / utter acceptance
        2. current Filing Review
        3. split Filing Review

Green Filing     George Knecht

Green filing is an e-filing service provider with Utah courts using e-filing 1.1.

Debt collection companies are filing 500 to 1500 docs per month and have a large interest in having an
integrated solution. Vendor is providing a simplified interface to allow the attorney vendors to be able
to develop their interface to pass to Green Filing. Maybe need to write an FTP SIP.

An EFSP but receiving a CoreFilingMessage (more like a Filing Review MDE)

Customers filing into Utah District Courts – debt collection (high volume)

Green Filing integrates with the legal CMSs and DMSs and simplifies their compliance with the courts

Green Filing reformats into a court format

All data they needed was already provided in CoreFilingMessage (no extensions needed)

Using web services SIP with 1 vendor and other vendor using FTP (FTP SIP?)

Saw major advantages to have something to start with – easy sell to the CMS/DMS vendors

Not yet in production

CMS/DMS Vendors: QLaw, VSD?

Challenges:

    -   Mapping process

Utah Courts      Ron Bowmaster

Utah had a change in philosophy. Clerk review prior to filing was in conflict with court rule that the clerk
would accept and change later. Next version will be implemented with auto accept all filings.

Deliver auto accept

Normal with filing review / clerk review

Filing acceptance and clerk review is separate.
Utah going totally paperless, one is now, one going in July. All paperless civil July 1 2012.

Other issue—ability to retract a filing.

Some attorneys elect to refuse to efile because they might be rejected on a deadline.

    -   Interested in receiving bulk filings
    -   All citations as of July 1 are NIEM
    -   Not doing juvenile/social services because NIEM and ECF are not complete in that area
    -   Changing the system to auto-accept everything (except auto-rejected reasons like viruses) –
        clerk will fix it later
    -   Utah civil cases going paperless July 1, 2012
    -   Scanning creating delays
    -   With auto-acceptance, should clean-up be within the scope of the specification? no

    George: need a mechanism to retract an accidental filing (unfile)

    -   Attorneys are worried about whether their filing will be considered filing by the deadline

    George: ECF should support re-submission of filing when things are rejected for innocent mistakes

    Gary: ECF should support FilingReview querying FilingAssembly MDE for more information (or to
correct errors)

Tybera Dallas Powell

A court ask for ECF version x and vendors don’t know how to reply because the vendor has to make
some assumptions because the CMS vendors don’t have a clue what ECF can do for them.



Document what functions ECF provides and create pros and cons on why they would want or not want
functions and services.

Security is a problem



ECF consider devising security concepts to provide to the courts. Case level, event level and document
level



On sealed cases where the attorney has to submit case number and party, the system confirms validity
and accepts filing.
ECF needs a whole security metrics structure.

PCI compliance issues use e-check

8 statewide implementations – small claims, probation, domestic, civil, criminal, appeals

Problem: RFP requires ECF 4 but doesn’t clarify what they mean by that

All their states (except Utah) do not understand ECF can do for them and do not want it

Filer interfaces used by filers, attorneys through external filer support (EFSP) or law firm CMS

CMS vendors do not have a clue about ECF 4

    -    Implemented into 10 CMSs - ACS, Tyler, CourtView, FullCourt
    -    There is no value in ECF interfaces with the CMS
    -    CMSs do not provide transaction processors

Interfacing with other state agencies

    -    Other agencies already using NIEM (non-ECF) schemas

Recommendation: Educating courts why they want it and how to use it

E-filing security is scary

    -    Tybera migrating to model where each individual logs in individually
    -    ECF should provide models for security at the case, event and document level

Technical issues:

    -    Document specific data
    -    Multi-case filing
    -    Partial approval
    -    Levels of status response
    -    Payment PCI compliance
    -    Refile issues
    -    Time stamp

URL Integration              Joe Mierwa

Genericode is likely to be the code list default because it supports 95 percent of the use cases. Need a
genericode for dummies.

Align terminology with SOA.

GFIPM and reliable messaging SIPs
   -   Cases that do not require filing review should not be a problem – the current spec supports it.
   -   Extensions for paper-on-demand are time-consuming
   -   Need to help developers with mapping to their systems
   -   Need extension points to support non-case filings (rather than use of attachments)
   -   ECF Web Services SIP predates most WS-* specifications and is now redundant in several areas
       of messaging

Peter Brown: ECF should look at alignment with SOA-RA

Ron Bowmaster: Need to define an architecture for e-filing

   -   Genericode is a challenge – need education materials – NIEM frustrated with maintaining code
       lists and considering replacements (Genericode is the leading candidate)

   Serguei: Need use cases for Genericode

Same issues as NIEM with extensions

Revisit base documentation and start aligning terminology with SOA

   -   An MDE is analogous to a high-level service

								
To top