§ 1-501 Court Automation Standards

A. Automation of Courts. All courts must automate their business functions, including, at a minimum, case management, court financial cash management, document management, and statistical reporting.

B. State Sponsored and Authorized Systems. Courts must use state-sponsored and authorized automation systems except as provided in subsection C. The state-sponsored and authorized systems include, but are not limited to, the following: • Trial Court Automation Software • Juvenile Probation Enterprise Automation Software • Adult Probation Enterprise Automation Software • Appellate Court Case Management System • Jury Management System • Electronic Filing (e-Filing) System • Electronic Document and Data Access System

C. Existing Automation Systems.

1. Courts operating on systems other than state-sponsored and authorized systems before January 1999 that otherwise meet the minimum standards for automation and reporting are not required to replace existing systems. These courts must migrate to state-sponsored systems when they replace their current systems except as provided in subsection D or E.

2. Pursuant to plans adopted by the Commission on Technology (COT), courts operating on systems other than state-sponsored and authorized systems before January 1999 must participate in mandated, statewide automation initiatives with no expectation for state funding. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, statewide projects such as: • Electronic statistical reporting • Electronic filing • Electronic public access to data • Central case data repository • Central document repository • Justice integration • Electronic document management • Digital evidence management

D. New Automation Systems. A court may petition for the adoption of a new state-sponsored and authorized system due to deficiencies in existing systems through the Judicial Project Investment Justification (JPIJ) process. The process is as follows:

1. The petitioning court must submit a JPIJ to COT. The court must use the most current version of the JPIJ, and must include a functional needs justification and business case analysis of both the state and local return on investment.

2. COT will review the petitioning court’s submission and will develop a recommendation to either adopt a new state-sponsored and authorized system or take other actions. COT forwards its recommendation to the chief justice for consideration.

3. The chief justice will either approve or deny the COT recommendation, in whole or in part, or take any other action determined to be in the best interests of the judicial branch.

E. Local Exception System. A court may petition for a local exception to any state-sponsored and authorized system by establishing a compelling business case. The process is as follows:

1. The requesting court must prepare a detailed comparison of functional needs to the capabilities of the state system and a business case analysis of both the local and state return on investment and submit this information to COT using COT’s exception request document.

2. COT will review the requesting court’s submission and will develop a recommendation to be made as a formal motion for COT consideration at a scheduled meeting. COT may approve or deny the motion and may place conditions on the exception system or project when determined to be in the best interests of the judicial branch.

3. COT may forward its determination on the motion, including its recommendation and any conditions, to the chief justice for final consideration.

F. Automation Funding. The administrative office will fund court automation and technology projects that are part of the state-sponsored and authorized systems and initiatives as funds are available for this purpose. Unless state funds are granted, courts must secure local funds for court automation projects that are not part of a statewide initiative or to participate in the mandated statewide initiatives identified in section (C)(2).

G. Information Technology Strategic Plan. The administrative director on behalf of the supreme court, the chief judges on behalf of each division of the court of appeals, and the presiding judge on behalf of the municipal, justice, and superior courts of the county must submit a three-year information technology strategic plan to COT for review and approval on a schedule determined by COT. Each plan must be in the format specified by COT and must include a description of all automation and technology projects and any plans for required migration to state sponsored and authorized systems. Adopted by Administrative Order 2001-08 effective January 11, 2001. Amended by Administrative Order 2012-04, effective January 11, 2012. Amended by Administrative Order 2017-74, effective July 5, 2017. Amended by Administrative Order 2025-08, effective January 8, 2025.