The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Aug. 3, 2017, that the court will begin electronic filing on Nov. 13, an odd date, given that the term begins the first Monday in October (as we all know), but a step into the modern era that we all can applaud. Not only will counsel be able to file and serve their briefs electronically, but the public will be able to access documents through the portal—at least documents filed after the start date—without cost. The court developed the system in-house, so it is not connected to the federal PACER system used for other federal court filings.

The federal electronic filing systems thus can be contrasted, top to bottom, with the New Jersey filing systems. The Appellate Division has had electronic filing for about four years, and the Civil Division is gradually rolling out its system on a mandatory basis, vicinage by vicinage. By anecdotal accounts, the systems are working well, and, except for its drop-dead deadlines—by which materials filed incorrectly are not accepted nunc pro tunc once the corrections are made—have been well received.

The state system has two significant shortcomings, though.

First, the existing filing systems do not allow fully functional public or other non-party access to the systems for checking dockets off-site and downloading filings. Although a new Electronic Access Program may permit a registered person to conduct a docket search, the actual brief or other filing is not visible/readable. Even registered users may not copy or “scrape” documents from the system. To obtain a copy of an Appellate Division brief, a non-party still must order it or make an appointment and then travel to the Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton to review and order copies of any documents. (Attorneys for parties can access filings in their case for downloading and printing from the Judiciary website.) Civil Division documents are available only in county courthouses and, in some counties, only on specified days after making a written request. The off-site public docket system (ACMS) remains obscure and riddled with shorthand codes that must be translated using a memo hidden on the court's web site. Nearby states, such as New York, are far ahead of New Jersey on these fronts.

Second, the New Jersey Supreme Court does not have an electronic filing system for civil cases. The backbone of a system apparently exists, such that the Public Defender, Attorney General and other state offices for which filing fees are waived can access the system. But the court's inability (so far) to organize a credit card or court account link for paying filing fees has stymied broader access. This contrasts to the court's generally progressive attitude toward technology, such as making oral arguments available on the web page.

We welcome the steps into the electronic age taken by the federal and state systems. We understand that budgeting issues have delayed the electronic filing systems in New Jersey, but the technical issues should be overcome. After all, the federal PACER system and other states have solved those problems decades ago. We hope that the judiciary will move forward with an aggressive timetable to resolve them.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Aug. 3, 2017, that the court will begin electronic filing on Nov. 13, an odd date, given that the term begins the first Monday in October (as we all know), but a step into the modern era that we all can applaud. Not only will counsel be able to file and serve their briefs electronically, but the public will be able to access documents through the portal—at least documents filed after the start date—without cost. The court developed the system in-house, so it is not connected to the federal PACER system used for other federal court filings.

The federal electronic filing systems thus can be contrasted, top to bottom, with the New Jersey filing systems. The Appellate Division has had electronic filing for about four years, and the Civil Division is gradually rolling out its system on a mandatory basis, vicinage by vicinage. By anecdotal accounts, the systems are working well, and, except for its drop-dead deadlines—by which materials filed incorrectly are not accepted nunc pro tunc once the corrections are made—have been well received.

The state system has two significant shortcomings, though.

First, the existing filing systems do not allow fully functional public or other non-party access to the systems for checking dockets off-site and downloading filings. Although a new Electronic Access Program may permit a registered person to conduct a docket search, the actual brief or other filing is not visible/readable. Even registered users may not copy or “scrape” documents from the system. To obtain a copy of an Appellate Division brief, a non-party still must order it or make an appointment and then travel to the Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton to review and order copies of any documents. (Attorneys for parties can access filings in their case for downloading and printing from the Judiciary website.) Civil Division documents are available only in county courthouses and, in some counties, only on specified days after making a written request. The off-site public docket system (ACMS) remains obscure and riddled with shorthand codes that must be translated using a memo hidden on the court's web site. Nearby states, such as New York, are far ahead of New Jersey on these fronts.

Second, the New Jersey Supreme Court does not have an electronic filing system for civil cases. The backbone of a system apparently exists, such that the Public Defender, Attorney General and other state offices for which filing fees are waived can access the system. But the court's inability (so far) to organize a credit card or court account link for paying filing fees has stymied broader access. This contrasts to the court's generally progressive attitude toward technology, such as making oral arguments available on the web page.

We welcome the steps into the electronic age taken by the federal and state systems. We understand that budgeting issues have delayed the electronic filing systems in New Jersey, but the technical issues should be overcome. After all, the federal PACER system and other states have solved those problems decades ago. We hope that the judiciary will move forward with an aggressive timetable to resolve them.