Open issues which affect cost and schedule for our integration project

Open issues


Closed issues

8/29/2016: Goodin needs the standard Filing Codes for Illinois: eFileIL has indicated that there will be a standard list of Filing Codes for the entire state.  The filing code structure Goodin already uses for e-filing has additional codes which categorize the different kinds of filings based on case subtypes (e.g. marriage license, tort damages, mortgage foreclosure) and whether the filing requires the CMS workflow to include creating a new litigant record (e.g. Counterclaim) or a new case attorney (e.g. an Entry of Appearance).  
  1. Answer: We have received a copy of the court standards spreadsheet, and on 9/15 we agreed to provide directions on how subtypes can be used. 
8/29/2016: What File Types will be allowed in Illinois? Our CMS interface presently supports only pdf (Portable Document Format) files, which can be viewed by a number of free viewed such as Adobe Acrobat Viewer.  Other file formats would require modifications to our CMS interface. 
  1. EFileIL advised that only PDF would be used
8/29/2016: Need to know whether or not Illinois will allow litigants to be added via subsequent filings (as indicated by the PartyAddAnotherPartyButtonSubsequent configuration code in the documentation).  If the answer is “Yes”, the following issues arise which would affect what workflow processes the CMS will have to initiate on such filings:
  1. The AOIC should advise Clerk staff what do if  an attorney who is not yet on the case in the CMS files something other than an Entry of Appearance on the case.  SCR 13(c)(1) would seem to require an Entry of Appearance.  And Goodin’s present CMS interface only makes new attorneys on entries of appearance and answers, so the AOIC's decision could require additional changes to the CMS interface.
    1. Answer: Dan Mueller has advised that under the current rules, the conditions under which the Clerk can reject a filing don't include an attorney's failure to comply with SCR 13.  If no appearance fee has been paid, you can bounce the filing back to fix that.
  2. Will eFileIL keep their own record of the attorneys on a case?  The eFileIL documentation on the CMS interface shows a GetCase call, which provides the attorneys of record on the case.  But the documentation also indicates that any filer can search for a case then file on it, irrespective of whether they ever filed an entry of appearance.  If eFileIL keeps a record that such a filer is a case attorney, their data could wind up conflicting with the court's data.
    1. Answer: EFileIL has advised that they do keep their own record of the case attorneys, independent of what the CMS says.  So even in the absence of an entry of appearance, CMS vendors should add filing attorneys to the case.
8/29/2016: It’s not clear whether some web service API calls are required or not: Will Illinois be using the following CMS and EFSP web services which are in the documentation, but aren’t reflected in the API diagram previously provided to us and our clients?
  1. SecureCase- so the CMS can advise the EFM that a case has been secured (because this is apparently supposed to prevent e-filing on it)
  2. GetFeesCalculation-this lets the EFSP advise the filer what the expected fees will be when the EFM later collects them
  3. GetFilingList and GetFilingStatus
Answer: The diagram provided previously didn't include everything required to interface with the EFM
Does the CMS have to do something when the approved filing is a re-submittal after corrections?
 The RecordFiling documentation allows for reference to an “ORIGINALENVELOPEID” and  mentions a “Return for Correction” process.  What does the CMS need the original filing envelope ID for, given that the CMS never even saw the original filing (because it was rejected at the EFM)?
Answer: It's provided just in case the CMS wants it.