Voelker field questions about electronic filing

Listen to this article

Several members of the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Board of Governors raised eyebrows and a few questions about the proposed system for voluntary electronic filing of circuit court documents.

With an established program already in place throughout the federal district courts in Wisconsin, some board members asked why the state courts didn’t simply adapt that system.

“Why reinvent the wheel?” said Gov. Gary G. Swanson, who noted that many attorneys are already familiar with the federal PACER system. “[The federal courts] have a good system already, so why spend the money.”

Apart from PACER

Though the proposed methodology for e-filing in the circuit courts is similar to the federal system, Director of State Courts A. John Voelker said lack of funding will force to state courts to implement a more affordable data entry program.

Voelker hoped to use the more efficient, but costlier, Extensible Markup Language (XML), but did not receive the necessary funding in the state budget. As indicated in the petition, circuit courts will use PDF technology for data entry.

The federal courts also currently use PDF files, but are considering a transition to XML, said Voelker.

“We asked for the Cadillac and instead got the Chevy,” said Voelker. “But I think lawyers will be happy with the Chevy.”

Also differing from the mandatory federal e-filing system, the circuit court program will only allow attorneys and pro se litigants to view materials related to their respective cases.

“That might be a phase two,” said Voelker. “Initially, a person will only be able to access any case they are identified as being a party to. You can’t look at someone else’s cases.”

Farewell Hard Copy

While computer access is almost taken for granted today, Gov. J. David Rice wondered if a hard copy would be available at all.

Voelker said no, and indicated that even if only one party opts to e-file, the other party’s documents would be copied into the electronic record and a copy could be obtained through the clerk.

In addition, e-filed cases will be directly downloaded to the Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP) case management system.

“It’s a long time coming and I think this will create a lot of efficiencies throughout the court system,” said Voelker.

Since 2005, pilot programs in Washington and Kenosha counties have been successful, said Voelker. Only two firms and small claims collections cases were included in the pilots, which resulted in 615 e-filings in Washington County and 476 in Kenosha County.

The Supreme Court will review the petition on April 4 and if adopted, Voelker said expansion of the program would commence during the next 12 to 18 months.

Also from the BOG

The board hesitantly answered the American Bar Association’s call to support legislation designed to strengthen attorney-client privilege.

Rather than join local bar associations from 10 other states in backing U.S. Senate Bill 186, which seeks to reverse the recent trend of pressuring companies to waive attorney-client privileges, the State Bar drafted a revised policy statement.

Several board members were reluctant to fully endorse legislation they were unfamiliar with, but wanted to show support for the concept.

The approved statement supported the “preservation” of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine as essential to maintaining the confidential relationship between attorneys and clients.

The House of Representatives approved companion bill H.R. 3013 by a voice vote in Nov. 2007, but SB 186 is stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.