Comments (38) | Add a comment
Electronic filing frustrates lawyers in valley
Tools
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
When the Clark County court system switched to electronic filing of documents, the new paperless system was supposed to enhance efficiency and lower costs for attorneys and people who represent themselves.
The idea behind e-filing was to streamline the process by eliminating the need to turn paper documents into electronic forms and by eliminating time-consuming indexing.
That promise hasn't panned out, according to attorneys who say the system has made their work unpredictable, more expensive, far less efficient and potentially harmful to the very people the courts are supposed to protect.
"Attorneys are furious over how long it's taking" to get court papers filed, Las Vegas divorce attorney Marshal Willick said. "We literally can't get things done."
The advantage in a court case often goes to the party who files a complaint first. That's particularly true in Family Court, where about two out of three people represent themselves.
Lacking an attorney's understanding of the system, they might not even realize their e-filings aren't getting where they need to be.
Jurisdiction also plays a big role in the outcome. If one party in a divorce lives in Nevada and the other elsewhere, the state where the complaint is filed first has jurisdiction. That includes custody of the children.
"It's a race to the courthouse," said Willick, recounting a recent case in which he filed first for his client but a processing delay allowed the out-of-state party to "beat the competing jurisdiction."
Willick and other attorneys also say documents are consistently rejected by clerks without notice to attorneys, who learn of it days and sometimes weeks later. This creates a "vast problem" when legal time lines are not met.
"It seems whenever the courts make an improvement, it's for them and not the public," Willick said.
The e-filing problems also cause headaches for judges, who must reconsider decisions after learning they had ruled based on incomplete information.
The cost of e-filing is another bone of contention for attorneys such as Willick. At $3.50 per document, Willick expects the average cost of a divorce -- already high -- will increase by at least $1,000.
To add insult to injury, Willick said, there is a fundamental unfairness in the system. Clark County lawyers pay an estimated $4,200 per year for e-filing, while Washoe County lawyers pay $100 per year.
Washoe County Court Administrator Howard Conyers said the difference is that his courts use a customized in-house system while Clark County uses the Wiznet e-filing and Odyssey case management systems, which charge vendor fees.
"I'm trying to get my mind around that $3.50 per document figure," Willick said.
"That's what we've been told is the actual cost," said District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez, who agrees with Willick on many points.
Gonzalez, the presiding judge over Clark County's civil division, said the biggest problem for civil law attorneys is the delay in getting a file-stamped copy returned. She asks attorneys who appear in her courtroom to provide courtesy copies.
Civil cases as a rule tend to be document-heavy, and in Clark County, the 17th most populated in the nation and one of the busiest jurisdictions in America, the volume of e-filing is the highest in the country.
Gonzalez said that the problems with e-filing are being addressed and that she has faith the kinks will work out.
She also thinks the poor economy contributes mightily to the problem. Roughly 20 court clerk positions have been lost to attrition over the past year at a time when e-filings have increased 283 percent, Gonzalez said.
Just under 89,000 documents were e-filed in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. With e-filing now mandatory, 341,211 documents were filed in the most recent fiscal year, she said.
"I think we're doing better," Gonzalez said, noting that the $3.50 per document cost was reduced from $6 and that prices are pegged to covering the system's cost and no more.
"We didn't expect the volume," she said. "There's always a learning curve."
Gonzalez also was quick to point out the issues with delays and other problems have not been caused by Tyler Technologies, which handles the county's e-filing and case management systems.
"It's not the vendor. It's us."
That is an opinion shared by Brandi Wendel, the court division administrator for Family Court.
Wendel also agrees with Willick's assessment, and she agrees Tyler Technologies has been "very responsive."
For instance, Gonzalez said the County Commission will be asked to fund a tweak to the system that will allow e-filings to be accepted immediately and rejected later if flaws are detected.
That would help speed up the process and would prevent rejecting documents for frivolous reasons, such as a typo.
Clearly, the biggest problems are in the Family Court system, where e-filing has been mandatory longer than in the civil or criminal divisions.
For Wendel, the problem is a combination of a shrunken staff in the face of growing litigation. She said 10 to 12 deputy clerks split their time between processing e-files on computers and dealing with 300 or so daily "customers" at the counter.
She said the office is about three business days behind, on average.
"It would be nice if we could keep up in real time," she said "The same day is our goal."
Approached for comment Friday at Family Court, Maria Gomez, whose daughter is fighting her ex-husband for custody of a daughter, said the long lines to file are not the issue.
"This is the easy part," she said. "They help us a lot because we are not good at the law. It's when we go to court that she gets scared."
For attorneys such as Willick, who must zealously advocate for their clients, the current system is slower, more expensive and less efficient than the paper filing system it replaced.
"That isn't my idea of progress," he said.
While Gonzales and Wendel point out that attorneys can file for free at courthouse kiosks, Willick and other attorneys say it's hardly free when they have to pay someone to stand in e-filing kiosk lines comparable with those at the Department of Motor Vehicles.
He said the solution is to improve the system based on what the public needs, not to suit court employees.
"Get rid of the bureaucratic mindset," he said. "If they can make this system work, it will be almost as good as what we had 10 years ago."
Wendel said that's the goal.
"We work hard," Wendel said. "We understand there's frustration, and we're working on issues and the vendor has been great, but we understand there's frustration."
Contact Doug McMurdo at dmcmurdo@reviewjournal.com or 702-224-5512 or read more courts coverage at lvlegalnews.com.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Willick doesn’t get it. To file in person requires printing the document, driving to the courthouse, finding a parking place or paying for parking, going through security, standing in line, walking back to car and driving back to the office. Or hiring a $3.50 courier. Can you post the courier’s phone number will file for you at $3.50? To e-file requires sending a document you already have ready and pressing a button. The larger, more sophisticated law firms understand and completely appreciate the inexpensive 24/7 access e-filing affords them. Because of e-filing, you can hear a cricket in the lobby of the civil court because the attorneys are utilizing e-filing.
Other than the delay at the courts for file stamped documents, which is mentioned in the article and that the courts are diligently addressing, this article is very one sided and largely devoid of the reality of the ground breaking progress made by the Clark County Clerk’s office. Their vision in implementing e-filing saves the taxpayer as well as the bar precious resources every day by reducing and eliminating scanning, data entry costs, file room space, etc. To vilify those who doing such a great job overall is really disappointing. My hat is off to Brandi Wendel, Judge Gonzalez and the others who are saving the bar and taxpayer’s time and money. A suggestion for McMurdo is to interview other law firms who better understand the benefits of e-filing.
Odyssey sucks. The court administration has no clue. They care for themselves. The kooky "your.right" (sic) lady needs to get a life or take a grammar and spelling class.
bonniej - Please read the third paragraph of the article: "...the system...potentially harmful to the very people the courts are supposed to protect".
The article is about the harm caused us pro per litigants because the court is not disclosing to us documents are not getting to the judges' departments.
bonniej - This RJ article is about administrative duties of the Eighth Judiciary. The article explains the errors and omisssions due to Clark County court administration's practices as stated by Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez. With all due respect and staying on point, the presiding family court judge's authorities come from EDCR. EDCRs other than 5.0 spell out authorities for administrative duties. That is why this article was written. The author is quoting Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez because Judge Gonzalez is realizing the court administration is committing errors. This article is not about "Hating Odyssey", your words. This article isn't about emotions at all. This article is about revealing to the public that documents are not being filed in real time and as a result, cases are being decided wrongfully. This is an administrative issue resulting in fallout in cases.
Your.Right,
I think you should read EDCR before you quote it. Section 2 is regarding civil actions while Section 5 is regarding Family Court, so you probably meant to state that rulings are being made based on EDCR 5.11(e), not 2.23.
However, I will again, say that when hand filed, you have two filed stamped copies, and when dealing with the family court, I have NEVER trusted the clerks to ensure that the judge has all the documents for a motion, hearing, etc. I always serve the judge with his/her own copy of the "file stamped" pleading. That's why the judges have boxes on the 3rd floor of their courthouse.
Washoe County and NV Supreme Court software company writes, "One aspect of the filing charges that was not clear in your article is that the filing fees charged in Clark County are paid to the Vendor (Tyler Technologies). There may be some sharing of this value with the court but the majority of that value goes to Tyler Technologies. The $100 subscription fee paid in Washoe all goes to the county/court. Tybera provides the efiling software in both Washoe and the Nevada Supreme Court. In both of these cases the software is licensed by the courts. In the case of Washoe, the court charges a subscription fee to off-set the cost to maintain the system while in the Nevada Supreme Court there is no charge for efiling because the Nevada Supreme Court chose to handle the maintenance costs from the Supreme Court budget.
Dallas Powell, President
Tybera Development Group, Inc."
bonniej writes, "It is the attorney's responsibility to keep a copy of the "file stamped" copy...The attorneys have copies off (sic) those non-scanned pleadings".
Yes. However, the Judges' Departments are ruling on the scanned documents. What is your point? If your point is the attorney or pro per litigant can go to court and argue by presenting a "fugitive document" then you need to read EDCR 2.23(c). That is the Eighth Judicial District Court Rule the Family Division judges are using not to have open court hearings and dismiss all cases based upon unscanned documents of which they have no knowledge.
Guru - Clark County court employees' actions are illegal. Read NRS 199 regarding the hinderance of the lawful process.
YourRight- how about you open a private Courthouse that guarantees perfection? Or at least volunteer your expertise at the Courthouse, so perfection is attained?
Bonnie: I agree Blackstone was much better than Odyssey. With Blackstone, you could open the first page of the document, it was generally accurate and you could just type in a case number and get the case. Odyssey rarely works. I hate it.
Your.Right, before the days of mandatory e-filing and you sent a runner down to the courthouse, you were to send the Original document plus TWO COPIES. It is the attorney's responsibility to keep a copy of the "file stamped" copy of any pleading filed with the court. Any attorney knows perfectly well that it's his/her @$$ on the line if they loose documents. So your argument about those non-scanned documents is a red herring. The attorneys have copies off those non-scanned pleadings.
Lawyer, e-filings cost $3.50 each, not $6.00. But you have to read an August memo from the Court, not the info on Wiznet's website, to get that info. Further, Wiznet allows filings for civil and family court cases. Also, Wiznet only covers District Court, and as most criminal cases begin and remain in Justice Court, if Wiznet expanded to criminal matters, it still wouldn't make much of a dent in criminal filings.
But it seems from your latest comment that your problem is more with Odyssey than Wiznet. I would not argue with you at all. I HATE Odyssey. Blackstone may have been ancient, but at least it worked!