legalxml-courtfiling — archive

[Dallas Powell]

I sent this response directly to Rolly, but perhaps others may be interested in the message. > Rolly, > > The OXCI document refers to the document "Architecture Models, Business > decisions, and Interoperability Issues" > http://www.tybera.com/E-Filing%20Architecture%20Models%20and%20Issues.htm . > OXCI indicates that who ever implements OXCI needs to support all models > defined in this document. That being the case, if you look at the last two > diagrams, (or the one I have included here) what those diagrams are saying > is that an attorney can install the exact same software the court installs, > that is, an EFSP and an EFM. Therefor if two attorneys install this > software, they can then file, or serve documents onto each other. In > addition, an attorney's client can use the EFSP provided by the attorney so > that the clients can file documents to the attorney. Then, if corporations > install the software, they can begin to exchange, file, serve... documents > onto each other. In reality, this model begins to create a spiders web of > installations with a complex method of managing how multiple EFM > installations control which EFSP installations can submit information to > each other, or even more specifically, what types of filings each authorized > EFSP can submit. to the various EFMs.. It suggests that when a Judge > creates a ruling, they can initiate a filing back to the participating > attorneys. (Two way automation) Although the diagram represents this > behavior, these concepts were not within the initial scope of original > document. The original document was intended to demonstrate to the TC that > there are multiple designs by which a court could interact with attorneys. > > The model that is shown in the attached diagram is the architecture that is > being implemented in Utah Court Filing 1.1 implementation. There are > attorneys and other state agencies preparing to install both an EFSP and EFM > at their locations. However, it is my opinion that in order to sustain a > system that officially allows attorneys to serve each other it will become > the responsibility of the Bar Association to provide a registry for the > attorneys to indicate which attorneys support this method of service. In > the same fashion, it is the responsibility of the Bar Association to publish > the official mailing address to serve documents on another attorney, or in > the case of Corporations, it will be the responsibility of the Department of > Commerce to maintain a registry of companies who support the interface to be > served electronically since the DOC licenses and maintains a registry of > companies and official addresses. > > I really don't believe OXCI intended to extend their design this far, but > that is the intent of the diagram. > > Dallas