Georgia State Electronic Court Filing Project

Home Contact




	E-Court-Filing

	Transcripts

	Georgia Electronic Records and Signatures

	Electronic Records and Signatures

	XML

	Projects

	Papers

	Presentations

	College of Law

California Electronic Court Filing

California Second Generation Electronic Filing Specifications Lessons Learned

by Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III

11/16/2004

In November 2002, the California Administrative Office of the Courts ("CA AOC") initiated the Second Generation Electronic Filing Specifications ("2GEFS") project to develop specifications for statewide electronic court filing. In July 2003, <xmlLegal> delivered the 2GEFS specifications. In August 2004, the CA AOC completed validation testing of the specifications.

The 2GEFS Fact Sheet provides a short and simple 2GEFS overview. The 2GEFS Roadmap introduces the 2GEFS Concepts Document, Court Filing 2.0, Court Policy 2.0, Request-Response 2.0, and CMS-API 2.0. The 2GEFS Lessons Learned Document is a detailed document about the 2GEFS XML Schema development and validation testing projects. The 2GEFS Lessons Learned document builds on the lessons learned in Georgia Electronic Court Filing Projects.

The 2GEFS are based on the <xmlLegal> Schema Framework. Three companies successfully implemented the specifications: counterclaim, inc., Essential Publishers, and OneLegal. Each of these companies filed into the Sacramento Superior Court.

For more information about 2GEFS, contact Christopher Smith (Christopher.Smith@jud.ca.gov) or visit the CA AOC E-Filing website.

You will need a password to access these documents.

Georgia Court Filing Juvenile and Child Support

Georgia Lessons Learned III

by Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III

7/31/2003

Lessons Learned III is an update on Georgia's Juvenile and Child Support electronic court filing projects. Live filings began in June 2002. From January 2003 to December 2003, approximately 900 juvenile filings were filed from both the Douglas County Sheriffs Office and the Douglasville Police Department.

The lesson learned document includes screen shots of applications used in the filing process. This website includes an example XML Form 90 Complaint.

The lessons learned document is dedicated to Judge Davie Emerson and Dr. Mohammed Shaikh. Judge Emersion is a Judge in Douglas County Superior Court and former Executive Director of Georgia Courts Automation Commission.

Dr. Mohammed Shaikh is CEO of E-Filing.com (www.e-filing.com). E-Filing.com supported the Juvenile and Child Support Electronic Filing Projects with software and technical support for two years free of charge in order to show proof-of-concept for electronic filing and use of XML technology and standards.

Special thanks to Judge Peggy Walker and all of the many Contributors listed in the document below the table of contents, without whom these projects would not have been possible.

You will need a password to access these documents.

Georgia Court Filing Interoperability Pilot

Georgia Lessons Learned II

by Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III

5/20/2002

Lessons Learned II is an update on Georgia Courts Automation Commission's Interoperability Pilot Project. This document also includes information about Georgia Child Support and Juvenile electronic filings.

You will need a password to access the document.

Georgia Court Filing Interoperability Pilot

Georgia Lessons Learned I

by Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III

12/4/2001

Georgia Courts Automation Commission's ("GCAC") mission is to encourage and facilitate automation in courts in the State of Georgia. In furtherance of this mission, GCAC sponsored a Court Filing Interoperability Pilot Project ("Interoperability Pilot"). The purpose of the Interoperability Pilot is to provide Georgia courts and attorneys with proof-of-concept of electronic court filing and to better understand the need for, and barriers to, developing court filing systems and standards in Georgia.

The Pilot had two phases. Phase I completed in July and August 2001 and was completely successful. Phase II completed in October and November 2001 and was partially successful. The Interoperability Pilot closed in November 2001. This lessons learned document details lessons learned during the pilot.

The lessons learned document and associated documents can be found on this website. You will need a password to access these documents.

Legal XML Court Filing

Legal XML Court Filing 1.0

7/24/2000

Legal XML Court Filing 1.0 is the first XML schema published openly for electronic court filing. Although the schema is now outdated, this is an important historical electronic court filing specification. Court Filing 1.0 is the first generation of electronic court filing specifications.

Georgia Court Filing Interoperability Pilot

Georgia Lessons Learned I Pilot Documents

Pilot DTD

Document	Comments

GeorgiaCourtFiling.2001.08.08.dtd	This DTD is the official DTD for the pilot. It is substantially similar to the Legal XML Court Filing 1.0 proposed standard with the addition of elements for a Georgia Civil and Domestic coversheet.
GeorgiaCoversheet.2001.06.28.dtd	This is a separate DTD of elements for a Georgia Civil and Domestic coversheet.

Draft Court Rules

Document	Comments

Draft Georgia Court Rules for Electronic Filing	These court rules were drafted as examples for pilot participants, but are not official court rules in the State of Georgia. In at least one court, the rules were implemented by administrative order.

County Codes, Coversheets, and Case Categories

Document	Comments
CivilandDomesticCaseFilingForm.pdf	Georgia Civil and Domestic Cover Sheet: This document is required on all filings in Georgia. The Legal XML DTD did not accommodate this information. As a result, the E-CT-Filing project created an additional DTD for these elements. The additional elements from the DTD were used in the "Civil" element of the Legal XML DTD where "ANY" content is allowed.
CIVCASE.pdf	Civil Case Categories: There is no standard for case categories or case codes in Georgia. Indeed, each of the courts in the pilot used their own case category information. This document shows one of several sets of case categories and codes used in Georgia. Further, these case categories do not match the information required on the Georgia Civil and Domestic Cover Sheet, above. Courts are required by a newly-enacted law to electronically report case category information to the Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts (through other entities). The lack of standard case categories and requirement to report electronically caused problems in the pilot, both technically and as a matter of conflicting policy.
GeorgiaCountyCodes.pdf	Georgia County Codes: Georgia does not have a standard means of identifying counties. There is, however, a list of county codes in existence. The Georgia pilot used the county codes in this document to identify the three counties involved in interoperability testing. See the lessons learned document for more information.

Requirements Document

Document	Comments
Georgia_Pilot_Requirements_Document_2000.09.06.v.0.1.pdf
Georgia_Pilot_Requirements_Document_2000.09.06.v.0.1_Edited.pdf	Edited v.0.1 document using Word track changes.
Georgia_Pilot_Requirements_Document_2000.09.12.v.0.2.pdf	Same as v.0.1_Edited, but track changes are all accepted.

Contract

Document	Comments
Georgia_Pilot_Generic_Contract_2000.09.08.v.0.2.pdf	Contract distributed to mailing list prior to September 11th, face-to-face meeting. This is the same contract that was distributed on paper at the face-to-face meeting.
Georgia_Pilot_Generic_Contract_2000.09.08.v.0.2_Edited.pdf	Minor edits to v.0.2 contract using Word track changes.
Georgia_Pilot_Generic_Contract_2000.09.11.v.0.3.pdf	Same as v.0.2_Edited but with track changes accepted. (This is a clean version.)
Georgia_Pilot_Generic_Contract_2000.12.20.v.0.4.pdf	Pilot contract after review by Georgia Attorney General. This is not the absolute final version, but is substantially similar.
Georgia_Pilot_Court_Order_2000.12.20.v.0.1.pdf	Draft court order suggested by Georgia Attorney General to be used in conjunction with the pilot contract. The courts in the pilot did not find this order useful for their requirements. As a result, each court wrote its own order.

Face-to-Face Meeting Agendas

Document	Comments
Georgia_Interoperability_Pilot_AGENDA_2000.09.11.pdf	Agenda for September 11th, 2000 face-to-face meeting.
Georgia_Interoperability_Pilot_AGENDA_2001.05.21.pdf	Agenda for May 21st, 2001 face-to-face meeting.

Pilot DTD

Draft Court Rules

County Codes, Coversheets, and Case Categories

Requirements Document

Contract

Face-to-Face Meeting Agendas

Other Documents