Dear Valued Client,
We understand that the LASC eFiling implementation has been an experience to say the least, and has caused numerous concerns for you due to the new eFiling system as well as Court related procedural issues.
At a recent meeting, the Court acknowledged the ongoing challenges facing attorneys, EFSP’s (Electronic Filing Service Providers) and the Court itself due in large part to the sheer size of the Court, legacy Court data issues, and users learning what the Court is requiring. They will be working with us and other partners to come up with processes to help mitigate these issues. But overall their position remains steadfast that most of the issues reflect a learning curve faced by both the legal community on how to properly submit eFilings into the Court, as well as their 150 court clerks who are continuing to be trained.
The Court provided the following feedback in response to areas of concerns raised with us by some partners.
1. Financial Issues
A. Fee waiver – The Court acknowledged that it was a configuration error that was causing fees to be assessed on filers, even if a valid fee waiver was on file or was submitted. They have fixed the problem and are working with JTI (Journal Technologies Inc. – the courts eFiling system creator) to refund any unwarranted fees to Fee Waiver filers as soon as possible. The Court has asked that the EFSP’s be patient and let their filers know that refunds will be issued soon. Stay tuned.
B. Refunds – We asked for a more formal and ideally streamlined process to be created to enable EFSP’s and filers to submit refund requests. The Court agreed and said that they would follow up with us to communicate the new process once they are ready to implement. Stay tuned.
2. Cases with Mismatched Data (Previous Physical File vs. New eFile)
A. Validation errors – The Court acknowledged that they have a data validation issue and are working to resolve it as quickly as possible. They are even talking about relaxing certain data requirements when a user is trying to submit an eFiling in order to reduce both errors and rejected filings.
B. Enhanced Support and Escalation process – LASC provided service providers a contact at each specific court location to investigate and hopefully resolve any data- or case- related issues preventing a user from submitting an eFiling. The Court’s goal is to have a response within 72 hours on how the filer should proceed.
3. Rejections
A. Failed submissions for technical reasons – The Court said that if a filer gets a rejection for technical reasons (metadata validation issues, gateway errors, etc.), then parties should physically file an ex‐parte application for relief. They recognize that the process of filing such an application would be a resource constraint on the court and the filer, but as of now that is the only option available.
B. Clerk issues – The Court acknowledged that part of the reason for the high rejection rate is that this is a new process as well for their 150 clerks and that further training is needed. The Court also let us know that they are internally reviewing the most common rejection reasons, rejections that don’t seem to make sense, and the practices being followed by the clerks.
The rate/cause of rejections, processing turnaround times, and pending/aging intervals are as follows based upon ACS/LASC performance statistics:
eFiling Rejection Rate: The overall case rejection rate since eFiling was first launched by LASC in November was 28%. However, over the past few weeks this rate has been greatly reduced.
Here are some of the top reasons for rejections that you may want to share with your customers:
Data entry error by filer – 40%
*Incorrect or abbreviated Party information
*Wrong Court Location selected
*Wrong document type Filing Code selected
*Attorney Information incorrect
Document uploaded is corrupted – 35%
*Missing or incorrect information
*Run-on document
*Missing signature(s)
*Party Names on document not a CMS match
Ineligible for Filing – 10%
*Other documents must be filed first
*Case has been dismissed
*LASC Processing Turnaround Times:
-70% of transactions have been processed by the Court within 1 week
-86% of transactions have been processed by the Court within 2 weeks
-14% of transactions took 2 weeks or longer for the Court to process
*Pending/Aging Intervals:
-65% of pending transactions have been with the Court for a week or less
-19% of pending transactions have been with the Court between 1 and 2 weeks
-16% of pending transactions have been with the Court for greater than 2 weeks
In the coming weeks and months, you should expect continued performance level improvements on all fronts.
For additional information or a case specific question, please call our Customer Support team at 888.514.5067 or send an email to efile@attorneyscertified.com.
For more information from the court, please click here to access the courts website.
Increasing operating efficiency for your business is our top priority. Thank you for allowing us to serve you.
-The ACS Team