Portal Subcommittee Agenda May 2021 Page 1 of 1

Portal Subcommittee Meeting Agenda May 5, 2021 1:30 – 3:30

To Join WebinarWebinar ID: 955 9776 5657

Passcode: 834814 Dial In: (786) 635-1003

I. Welcome – Judge Martin Bidwill, ChairA. Roll call

II. Meeting Summary – (informational)A. February 2021

III. FCCC Standardization Committee Update – Clerk Karen RushingA. OSCA’s Response to Standard Case Type Matrix

IV. Portal Progress Update – Carolyn WeberA. Portal’s 10th Anniversary video (informational)A. Portal Release List 2021.01 delay

V. Request for DOB Field– OSCA’s Court Improvement

VI. Service Email Addresses – Judge BidwillA. Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b)(1)(A)

VII. Embedded Hyperlinks – Judge BidwillA. Cybersecurity Subcommittee Response

VIII. Electronic Warrants Initiative – Judge Bidwill

IX. SRL eFiling Initiative – Murray SilversteinA. SRL E-Filing Report

X. Next Quarterly Meeting – Judge BidwillA. August 18, 2021 via Zoom

Agenda Item II. A.

Meeting SummaryFebruary 3, 2021

February 3, 2021 Portal Subcommittee Meeting Summary Page 1 of 5

Portal Subcommittee Meeting Summary

February 3, 2021

A meeting of the Portal Subcommittee was held via Zoom on February 3, 2021. The meeting convened at 1:00 PM, Chair Judge Martin Bidwill presiding.

Members in attendance: Judge Martin Bidwill Robert Adelardi Melvin Cox Laird Lile Judge Josephine Gagliardi Tom Morris Sunny Nemade Murray Silverstein Leslie Powell-Boudreaux Carolyn Weber Lonn Weissblum Jeff Taylor Rex Dimmig Other Attendees: Clerk Karen Rushing Amy Borman Mike Smith Justin Horan Judge Hunter Carroll Tom Hall Clerk Tara Green Members Absent: Craig Van Brussel Craig McLean OSCA staff in attendance: Roosevelt Sawyer, Jr. Alan Neubauer Lakisha Hall Jeannine Moore Dana Dowling Grethe Erica White Hetal Patel Susan Proctor

AGENDA ITEM I. Welcome

Chair Bidwill called the Portal Subcommittee meeting to order and advised the meeting was being recorded. A. Jeannine Moore called roll and noted a quorum was present.

II. November 2020 Meeting Summary Judge Bidwill referenced the November 2020 meeting summary for informational purposes.

AGENDA ITEM III. FCCC Standardization Committee Update

Clerk Karen Rushing presented the case type matrix and explained the initiative to develop standard docket descriptions which lead to the awareness that standardization of the sub-case types was necessary. The matrix identifies what sub-case types exist today and the authority of a Supreme Court AO or the Summary Reporting System (SRS). In column “D”, is an attempt to identify what exists and the current standard promulgated by the court. The color coding is the recommended change in the naming convention and the far-right column lists the authority by which the sub-case types were created. Although not all clerks have all of the sub-case types in column “D”, the matrix has been vetted through the subject matter experts and is a standard that the clerks could achieve. Clerk Rushing suggested the proposed matrix be sent to OSCA to validate the sub-case types in column “D”, along with the naming convention in column “E”, that may signify a change or addition to the sub-case type. With the feedback from OSCA, the committee will then move forward to develop the standard docket descriptions that go along with the sub-case types. At some point, when

February 3, 2021 Portal Subcommittee Meeting Summary Page 2 of 5

the sub-case types are approved by the FCTC, they will then go to the CMS Standards Subcommittee to be included in the clerks CMS standards.

Motion to recommend the Case Type Matrix be referred to OSCA for feedback on the proposed sub-case types in column “D” and the naming convention in column “E.”

MOTION OFFERED: Clerk Karen Rushing MOTION SECONDED: Mike Smith MOTION CARRIED

➢ Add to the May 2021 meeting agenda if feedback from OSCA is received.

IV. Portal Progress Update

A. Carolyn Weber presented the December 2020 Portal progress report that includes new slides for the previously suggested SRL statistics. The first slide shows a total of 222, 989 SRL accounts with 12,701 submissions that were received. Of those 222,989 accounts, only 4,861 or 2.1% of the active SRL accounts made those submissions. Judge Bidwill noted the SRL submissions accounted for only 0.9% of the total submissions to the Portal. Another slide that was added, is a breakdown of the SRL accounts that are in an inactive status, pending activation, locked accounts, and active Portal accounts along with a breakdown of who the submissions were filed to by county, Supreme Court, and the five District Courts of Appeals. The next slide gives information on what DIY Florida interviews are available in the Portal with the small claims statement of claim, small claims answers, and tenant eviction answers. Ms. Weber noted the tenant eviction complaints and the interpersonal violence interviews were recently added to the Portal and will be disclosed in next month’s report. Amy Borman explained the outreach in Palm Beach County with the DIY and questioned if there is a media or PR packet that is already prepared where clerk offices can utilize to guide litigants. Ms. Weber stated the Portal team has been working with OSCA and the Legal Aid organization as well as posting on the news and information section of the Portal regarding information on the DIY interviews. The court services team in OSCA is also providing outreach for the public. Roosevelt Sawyer, Jr. confirmed OSCA is doing communications around the DIY through the FL Courts Help app and there may be other opportunities with the Efiling Authority redesign of their website to have language added about the DIY initiatives. Judge Bidwill requested Mr. Sawyer provide the materials to the subcommittee via Jeannine Moore. ➢ Mr. Sawyer to follow-up with Ms. Borman on OSCA’s communication plan ➢ Mr. Sawyer to provide OSCA communications surrounding DIY/FL Courts App

B. Ms. Weber referred to the proposed Portal release list that will be presented to the eFiling Authority Board for approval and to move forward with the release on April 24, 2021. One of the higher priority items is rewriting the eCommerce piece in the Portal which is a large modification due to the payment engine changing. Also, working on the integration with CCIS and the Access Security Matrix which will involve extensive testing. Christina Blakeslee questioned the “service removal tool for system admins only” item and if it is going to be the system admins within the circuit. Ms. Weber replied it is within the Portal where they would need to contact the service desk system admins for removal requests. Mike Smith inquired on moving forward with allowing SRLs to use their email address as their Portal login username for a unique identifier to cut down on multiple accounts. Ms. Weber responded the Portal team will look into this. Jeff Taylor agreed

February 3, 2021 Portal Subcommittee Meeting Summary Page 3 of 5

and in Manatee County the email address is used for the primary unique identifier for official record searches. Mr. Taylor questioned if some of the attorneys that work for an agency and work for a private firm keep the accounts separate or use the same account. Ms. Weber confirmed, as the Portal allows them to have multiple accounts. Clerk Lonn Weissblum thanked Ms. Weber for the additional SRL statistics and noted it will be interesting to see how the trend looks compared to how many overall active accounts there actually are. ➢ The Portal team to look into utilizing SRL email addresses as a filer’s Portal login name for

the unique identifier to reduce multiple SRL accounts

V. Confidential Filings Update Judge Bidwill described the concern that non-parties filing into a case, would have access to confidential filings within that case. Ms. Weber spoke on the Security Access Matrix being added to the Portal where the Portal team is waiting for the matrix to be added to CCIS and testing can be done to ensure that the confidentiality is protected. She explained it would be run by the Security Access Matrix within CCIS based on the filer role of the person trying to access the case file. Melvin Cox added FCCC is working diligently to complete the integration and anticipate within the next couple of months.

➢ Add update to the May 2021 meeting agenda

VI. Mandatory Efiling/Eservice by Pro Se Filers Update Leslie Boudreaux informed the committee that the workgroup has not been able to meet and is still waiting for the OSCA representatives to join the workgroup. There are a number of different places where people can find forms, but not all are Supreme Court approved forms. A discussion is necessary to determine ways to streamline and expedite the Supreme Court approval process and where those forms would exist. She explained DIY forms are on OSCA and clerk websites, and then there is Florida Law Help, which is owned by the Florida Bar Foundation that has a gateway which includes some of the forms. The objective is to pull all of these resources together and find a definitive place where they would reside and streamline some of those processes. Mr. Sawyer referred to the workgroup’s original recommendation for a pilot and recommended advancing that through the Portal subcommittee, the FCTC, and then the Supreme Court to start the pilot. He suggested that formality would start engaging other stakeholders. Judge Bidwill inquired on the workgroup’s specific division types for the subject of the pilot. Ms. Boudreaux replied since there are already DIY Supreme Court approved forms that exist under small claims roles that it would be a good place to start and likely to have a fair number of SRLs. The recommendation would still need to determine how many counties and which jurisdictions to target for the pilot. Mr. Sawyer introduced Susan Proctor and Dana Dowling Grethe in OSCA’s Court Services who are both involved in different aspects as it relates to some of the mentioned forms. Ms. Grethe specified her involvement with the DIY Florida interviews and has been working with the Portal team in putting the interviews together. Judge Bidwill requested OSCA participation on the workgroup to formulate a final recommendation. Ms. Proctor and Ms. Grethe agreed to participate in a consulting role.

➢ OSCA representatives to work with the SRL workgroup to finalize a recommendation

VII. Designation of Mail/Email Form

February 3, 2021 Portal Subcommittee Meeting Summary Page 4 of 5

Judge Bidwill described the Designation of Current Mailing and E-mail Address that is filed locally and the disconnect and uncertainty about who is really on the service list as to the clerk actually adding the email address to the Portal service list or if the local CMS picks it up. Ms. Proctor stated she works with the family law forms but is not well versed on how things move through the Portal. For the form in question to be modified it would go through a Forms Advisory Workgroup. Mr. Smith clarified there is no communication to the Portal that the individual opted in for eservice. His thought is more communication between the Portal and local CMS, as information is submitted, it makes it up to the Portal level and/or to the local CMS. Another issue with this form could be someone intentionally submitting someone else’s email address to be served when the other party did not opt in for eservice. Judge Bidwill added some of the forms not addressing the issue of the Portal’s role and may fall into the SRL workgroup’s recommendation to review these forms and apply such context. Ms. Proctor explained the forms workgroup, which is a Supreme Court committee, consisting of judges, lawyers, and clerks. Once a decision is made to revise the form, it will then be submitted to the Supreme Court for final approval. Judge Bidwill requested the SRL workgroup to consider recommendations to the SC Forms Workgroup. Murray Silverstein commented on the family law rules that have a larger percentage of SRLs. He inquired if the Portal could perform the updates when making a change to an email address for purposes of service and future notices for SRLs. Eventually there will be mandatory efiling and it would be a good transition time to have the filer go into their account and update the contact information at the Portal level. The question will then be, if the Portal can relay the information to the local CMS or how the CMS will go up and extract that information. Mr. Taylor confirmed that clerks are not going into the Portal to update Portal records from the local level. Justin Horan suggested to make it clear to file the form electronically through the Portal, where filers have to create an account by efiling the document, if they do not have one. Mr. Smith requested if there is going to be a change made to a form, have local clerks or court staff that use these forms daily be included in the forum. Ms. Weber commented that the person who owns the Portal account can only update a person’s profile on the Portal. Kim Stenger mentioned many of these forms require a deputy clerk to witness their signature and this is a reason filers do not use the Portal to efile. The clerks struggle to train these customers when they are one-time users of the system. Judge Bidwill commented on providing potential kiosks in the clerk’s office which could be dedicated to efiling in the Portal. Sunny Nemade described the 17th circuit process, when the clerk gets the designated form, they update the email address in the local CMS system to merge with the service list. He stated it may be better to put a notice on all the forms to indicate, if the desire is for eservice, that they will need to create an account with the Portal and include such instructions. Mr. Silverstein inquired if the forms are approved by the Supreme Court, do they go through the RJAC. Ms. Proctor replied currently any form revisions done do not go through the Rules Committee. He explained there is a great deal of duplicated effort through which the process could be streamlined. One example is no legal requirement or statute for a notarization of the particular form or on other filings that require a notarization.

➢ Ms. Proctor and Ms. Grethe to participate in the SRL workgroup ➢ SRL Workgroup to include recommendation of reviewing forms to address Portal role

VIII. Electronic Search and Arrest Warrants Judge Bidwill noted this item has been discussed in the abstract and is a complex issue. For time constraints, a small workgroup will be established to outline and determine how this might work in

February 3, 2021 Portal Subcommittee Meeting Summary Page 5 of 5

the Portal context. Any volunteers for the workgroup can email Jeannine Moore where a future meeting will be coordinated.

➢ Volunteers: Tony Landry, Carolyn Weber, and Fernando Cabrera

IX. Next Quarterly Meeting

a. The next quarterly meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 5, 2021 via Zoom. With no further business, meeting was adjourned.

Agenda Item III. A.

OSCA Response to Standard Case Type

Matrix

Charles T. Canady Chief Justice

Elisabeth H. Kiel State Courts Administrator

Supreme Court Building ● 500 South Duval Street ● Tallahassee, Florida 32399 –1900 ● http://www.flcourts.org

Office of the State Courts Administrator

Phone: (850) 922-5081 Fax: (850) 488-0156 e-mail: osca@flcourts.org

April 6, 2021

The Honorable Lisa Taylor Munyon Chair, Florida Courts Technology Commission Ninth Judicial Circuit Orange County Courthouse 425 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Dear Judge Munyon: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Standard Case Types Matrix (Matrix) for the e-Portal. The Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) recognizes there are reporting dependencies among the e-Portal, clerk case maintenance systems, and statewide court reporting systems that must be harmonized to advance any standardization process. Changes to case types in the e-Portal and clerk systems can have impacts when data is aggregated by the courts and clerks to report court activity as part of the Uniform Case Reporting (UCR) System or Summary Reporting System (SRS). It is important to view these changes holistically, and I thank the Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC) and the Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers (FCCC) for recognizing the intricacies and nuances of standardization and court data reporting. For purposes of reporting case activity to the OSCA for civil case types and sub-case types, the case type and sub-case type must match the corresponding type identified on the Civil Cover Sheet, Form 1.997, Fla. R. Civ. P. Deviating from those Supreme Court approved case types and sub-case types would require a formal rule change. Further segmentation of the case types or sub-case types identified on Form 1.997 at the local level, for clerk ministerial functions to aid in fee collection or workflow, would be appropriate. However, it is important that the segmentation map back to the defined reporting case type or sub-case type, as defined on Form 1.997, for overall reporting purposes to the OSCA. All fields from Form 1.997 (e.g., claim ranges) are important case characteristics and should be captured and reported as provided on that form. To help inform the work of the FCTC Portal Subcommittee and the FCCC Standardization Committee, we wanted to provide additional information and updates regarding the SRS and UCR systems. These may be important considerations as changes to the e-Portal are further considered and as clerks

The Honorable Lisa Taylor Munyon April 6, 2021 Page 2

consider adjustments to their systems and required mapping to link to an existing defined case type in SRS and UCR. With the transition to UCR underway, the OSCA is minimizing the number of additional changes made to the existing SRS. As counties transition to UCR and their case information is validated through Phase II of that transition, reporting through SRS will no longer be required. Therefore, additional changes to SRS will provide little future utility for case tracking as counties transition to UCR and discontinue reporting in SRS. Pursuant to In re: Uniform Case Reporting Implementation, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-30 (May 11, 2020), the Florida clerks must comply with the UCR reporting requirements in all trial court divisions no later than December 31, 2021. To assist the clerks in their transition to UCR, the OSCA is attempting to limit the number of changes made to the UCR Specification over the next several months. There were a number of updates required to the Specification in 2020 due to legislative and court rule changes. Similar to changes to civil case or sub-case types previously mentioned, as a local level clerk ministerial function to aid in fee collection or workflow, further segmentation of the case types or sub-case types outside of civil would be appropriate, provided there is a direct one-to-one mapping of those cases back to the defined reporting case type or sub-case type. Thank you for your support of OSCA’s desire for a meeting with representatives of the FCTC Portal Subcommittee and the FCCC Standardization Committee to discuss specific recommendations to the Matrix and to ensure the feedback OSCA provides is helpful to the project. I have asked Andrew Johns, Chief of Court Services, in OSCA to coordinate a meeting with those groups.

Sincerely,

Elisabeth H. Kiel EHK:aqj cc: Judge Martin Bidwill Roosevelt Sawyer, Jr.

Agenda Item VI. A.

Email Service Addresses

Page 1 of 1

Service Email Addresses – John Tomasino

An idea was presented to Justice Polston dealing with the attorney email addresses issue for service. Currently, the applicable rule allows up to three email addresses PER case. Theoretically, this means an attorney could have an infinite number of email addresses and courts, clerks, and parties, would have to verify, in each case, what the appropriate addresses are. The suggestion was to update Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b)(1)(A) to instead require the attorneys to maintain up to “X” number of email addresses with The Florida Bar and possibly the Portal (or the Portal could get the info from the Bar each night). This would make it easier on clerks, judicial viewers, etc., on ascertaining where to serve attorneys, as the info would be publicly listed directly on their Bar profile. Additionally, this would assist pro se folks and when an attorney needs to be served who has not yet designated his/her three email addresses for a case. A few key folks (Carolyn Weber, Tom Hall, Karen Rushing) are supportive of this initiative. Justice Polston thought this was worth exploring and approved an informal request to Judge Munyon to further investigate whether the pros of this change outweigh any potential cons.

Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516(b):

(1) Service by Electronic Mail (“e-mail”). All documents required or permitted to be served on another party must be served by e-mail, unless the parties otherwise stipulate or this rule otherwise provides. A filer of an electronic document has complied with this subdivision if the Florida Courts efiling Portal (“Portal”) or other authorized electronic filing system with a supreme court approved electronic service system (“e-Service system”) served the document by e-mail or provided a link by e-mail to the document on a website maintained by a clerk (“e-Service”). The filer of an electronic document must verify that the Portal or other e-Service system uses the names and e-mail addresses provided by the parties pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(A).

(A) Service on Attorneys. Upon appearing in a proceeding, an attorney must designate a primary e-mail address and may designate no more than two secondary e-mail addresses and is responsible for the accuracy of and changes to that attorney’s own e-mail addresses maintained by the Portal or other e-Service system. Thereafter, service must be directed to all designated e-mail addresses in that proceeding. Every document filed or served by an attorney thereafter must include the primary e-mail address of that attorney and any secondary e-mail addresses. If an attorney does not designate any e-mail address for service, documents may be served on that attorney at the e-mail address on record with The Florida Bar.

Agenda Item VII. A.

Cybersecurity Subcommittee

Response

TO: Judge Martin Bidwill

Chair, Portal Subcommittee

FROM: Robert Adelardi

Chair, Cybersecurity Subcommittee

DATE: March 8, 2021

SUBJECT: Embedded Hyperlink Referral

In August 2020, the Portal Subcommittee requested an opinion from the Cybersecurity

Subcommittee related to the potential threat that embedded hyperlinks may pose to the court’s

infrastructure. The cause for concern was due to Notice of Hearings being submitted from a few

circuits that had embedded meeting links and were flagged by one of the Portal’s nine scanning

engines, while the other eight scanning engines accepted the filings.

According to the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Standards, Version 19.0, Section 1.1.5,

Requirements for Individual Filers:

1.1.5.1 Embedded Hyperlinks. Hyperlinks embedded within a filing should refer only to

information within the same document, external documents, or information sources that

are reasonably believed to be trustworthy and stable over long periods of time. Hyperlinks

should not be used to refer to external documents or information sources likely to change.

Previously, including or embedding hyperlinks was not concerning due to filings were being

“flattened” with the conversion process to a TIFF image format. With the court’s adoption of the

new PDF/A document format, any filing created in a native PDF/A format will automatically

introduce clickable hyperlinks if included in the original formation of the document.

The desire for including hyperlinks in documents has increased from simple hyperlinks for the

ease of navigation within a single document to quick links to email addresses. More recently, with

the COVID-19 pandemic, embedded hyperlinks to electronic court proceedings or remote hearing

platforms have increased. These meeting hyperlinks allow a recipient to join a hearing with the

click of a mouse. The capability for the courts to create a Notice of Hearing and include meeting

hyperlinks has been accepted by most judicial circuits in Florida.

The Honorable Martin Bidwill

Embedded Hyperlink Referral

Page 2 of 2

In general, hyperlinks do not contain malware but rather direct to a website (webserver) that was

either previously compromised or purposefully set up to inject malware to unsuspecting visitors.

Where a threat could be encountered is within macro-enabled word documents or PDF files

containing malware; although, the malware could be present regardless of any embedded

hyperlinks, which would make the file format the container of the malware and not the hyperlink.

Currently, the Court Application Processing System (CAPS) Version 5.0 requirement permits the

direct filing of documents into the Clerk’s Case Management System (CMS), effectively by-

passing the Portal. This process could potentially introduce a compromised document into the

CMS without being scanned by the Portal.

To counter these threats, the courts depend on different defense vectors. Initially, having individual

computers installed with current anti-malware software. This would be the first line of defense in

case a user activates the malware contained in an infected or malicious document. A second line

of defense are Web Security Appliances that block incoming and outgoing traffic to known

blacklisted sites based on reputation or file behavior.

In conclusion, it is the opinion of this subcommittee that the Portal continue to accept documents

with embedded hyperlinks within filings submitted through the Portal. As such, any document that

is identified as a potential risk by the scanning engines of the Portal, continue to be sent to the

correction queue for validation and/or correction until the root cause is identified and mitigated.

On behalf of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this assessment of the

embedded hyperlink concerns. I will be happy to address any questions you may have.

RA:jmm

cc: Judge Lisa T. Munyon, FCTC Chair

Agenda Item IX. A.

SRL E-Filing Report

1

FLORIDA COURTS TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION E-FILING PORTAL COMMITTEE

CHAIR: HON. MARTIN BIDWILL, CIRCUIT JUDGE

SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS E-FILING WORKGROUP: SECOND INTERIM REPORT1

I. Issues, Tasks, Observations, and Obstacles.

A. Issues.

Since its creation by the Florida Courts Technology Commission (“FCTC”), the Self-Represented Litigants E-Filing Workgroup has endeavored to identify the most productive and efficient means for Florida’s Self-Represented Litigants (“SRLs”) to electronically access Florida’s courts and file court documents through the Florida Courts E-filing Portal.

SRLs2 have used the Florida Courts E-filing Portal (Portal) since its inception. There are currently more than 243,000 registered SRL users. Most of these, however, are one-time users, meaning they register to file in a single case. The SRL faces multiple barriers to the productive and efficient participation in Florida’s electronic courts system, which we attempt to identify while offering suggestions and improvements.

E-filing with electronic service of court documents has been embraced by all constituencies of Florida’s courts since becoming mandatory in 2009.3 While

1 The initial report was prepared as of 11/18/2020. 2 This report primarily focuses on the financially challenged individual representing himself/herself and identified throughout as SRLs, although the SRL definition, broadly, includes those who simply choose to proceed without a lawyer even though they may be able to afford one. 3 In 2008, the Florida Legislature (§16, Ch. 2009-61, Laws of Florida) mandated the transition to electronic filing of court records. As a result, the Court adopted the “Florida Supreme Court Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts.” See In Re: Statewide Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No.: AOSC09-30 (July 1, 2009). The current technology standards, the “Florida

2

mandatory e-filing and e-service have never been mandatory for SRLs,4 there was some expectation that SRLs would, nevertheless, participate and follow the trend. This has not occurred consistently or successfully. With the implementation of certain suggested changes, however, full participation by SRLs can lead to greater overall efficiency in Florida’s court system. Among other goals, the Court has identified within its long-range strategic plan that courts operate digitally, placing a premium on “information technology to improve court access and operations…”5

B. Tasks.

This Workgroup was tasked with identifying barriers to SRLs e-filing with the goal of eliminating or reducing those barriers so that SRLs will have better access to the courts. All stakeholders and participants in the judicial process would thereby experience increased efficiency and productivity. During this transition period, any recommended solutions should also include the option to permit paper filings when e-filing is not appropriate or available to SRLs.

Courts E-Filing Portal Standards,” were approved by the Court and effective as of August 21, 2020. See In Re: Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Standards, Fla. Admin. Order No.: AOSC20-77 (Corrected) (August 21, 2020). 4 SRLs were and remain exempted from mandatory e-filing and e-service. See In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules, etc., Fla. Admin. Order No.: SC11-399 (Fla. October 18, 2012) (Revised Opinion) at pp. 4-5 (exempted from e-filing) and Rule 2.525(d)(2), Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration; and, In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, etc., Fla. Admin. Order No.: SC10-2101 (Fla. October 18, 2012) (Revised Opinion) at p. 5 (exempted from e-mail service), and Rule 2.516(b)(1)(C), Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration. 5 See Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Judicial Branch Planning, The Long-Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch (2009 – 2015) at 10 (2009), as cited in In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration – Rule 2.236, 41 So.3d 128, 129 n. 5 (Fla. 2010). See also The Long-Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch: (2016 – 2021), Long-Range Issue 4 – Modernize the administration of justice and operation of court facilities, Goal 4.5: “Modernize court processes through automation and expanded self-service options for court users.” https://www.flcourts.org/Administration-Funding/Innovations-Outreach/Long-Range-Strategic-Plan (last accessed 4/17/2021).

3

C. General Observations.

While the aspirational goal of mandatory e-filing for SRLs appeared possible when the FCTC created this workgroup, the members have come to the realization that the tools and technology are not yet readily available to support mandatory e-filing and service by SRLs. In the present environment, it would be unfair and unreasonable to require all SRLs to e-file and e-serve their court documents. After the expansion of technology tools, resources, education, and related support, as set forth in this report, mandatory e-filing by SRLs can be revisited again, if necessary.

D. Obstacles.

A non-exhaustive list of primary obstacles to full participation in electronic courts by SRLs includes:

(a) inconsistent and not easily identified points of entry for online access to clerks’ offices, courthouses, legal aid providers, local bar associations, or self-help providers;

(b) DIY and A2J initiatives are not fully developed in the primary subject areas sought by SRLs, such as consumer disputes, debt collection, small claims, landlord/tenant disputes, probate, and family law (the “SRL Subject Areas”);

(c) forms are not yet consistently and fully developed in the SRL Subject Areas or available online with assistance through self-guided tutorials and related technology helpers, such as chat boxes or telephone assistance;

(d) forms cannot be completed via XML data elements and/or PDF fillable forms – the online experience should not be interrupted by having to print and type the document, then scan to file in the Portal;

(e) notarization or blue ink manual and, occasionally, witnessed signatures are required, resulting in printing, signature, then scanning before electronically filing in a single session via the Portal;

(f) Electronic notarization and/or verification under F.S. § 90.525 are legally viable and available tools but seldom used; and,

(g) Societal – depending on socioeconomic influences, many SRLs lack access to secure internet, high-speed broadband, computers, laptops, tablets, or smart phones, of sufficient speed, memory or

4

capacity. Additionally, language challenges are a real and continuing barrier to a great many Floridians.6

II. Recommendations.

A. Permanent Committee or Commission.

A standing committee or more permanent commission7 appears central to being able to fulfill the objectives and accomplish the recommendations set forth in this report. This group would serve as the central organizing body for SRLs’ access to the courts, which would also recommend policy and procedure for approval by the Court. This body would be able to move swiftly while also taking into consideration the input of several stakeholders invested in the SRL process, including representatives from:

(a) The Office of State Courts Administration (OSCA) (b) The Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC) (c) The Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers (FCCC) (d) The Florida Courts E-Fling Portal Authority (Authority) (e) The Florida Civil Legal Aid Association (FCLAA) (f) The Florida Bar Foundation (Foundation)

6 See Voices in the Civil Justice System: Learning from Self-Represented Litigants and Their Trusted Intermediaries (flcourts.org), at 66 – 73 (Findings and Recommendations). See also, regarding broadband use: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ 7 Court committee structures include:

• Council • Commission • Division steering committee • Work group/task force, and • Other committee.

The recommended group would most likely be an Other Committee, as defined by the Office of State Courts Administration. See https://www.flcourts.org/Administration-Funding/Court-Councils-Commissions-and-Committees.

5

(g) The Florida Bar (TFB) (h) The Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice (Commission) (i) The Florida Pro Bono Coordinators Association (j) Families and Children Steering Committee (k) Public Defenders Association (l) State Attorneys Association

(m) Court Rules Committees in SRL Subject Areas, as well as the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Committee

B. SRL Forms.

The identified SRL standing committee should recommend one group to have authority for the development and implementation of SRL forms, subject to ultimate approval by the Court. The SRL forms need to be uniform, of statewide application, streamlined in development and approval, and fully interactive and able to be filed electronically through the Portal without the need to separately print, sign or scan. The forms would also include tools for self-guided navigation, Q&As, referrals and links to other resources, such as local legal aid organizations capable of fulfilling pro bono referrals. The SRL form approval process must be an improvement over the traditional and slow rule amendment approval process without sacrificing accuracy and able to be considered for expedited approval by the Court, at least during the early stages of implementation of the SRL initiatives set forth in these recommendations. Subject matter experts in the SRL Subject Areas from The Florida Bar rules committees would be sought for inclusion on the SRL forms committee, as well as a representative from the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Committee.

C. The Interactive Process.

Self-guided tutorials should be available to SRLs to assist with several functions, including:

(a) Registration – the SRL should register through both: (i) the Portal and (i)

a statewide FCLAA intake questionnaire if qualified for legal aid assistance, which can be used to determine eligibility, pro bono assistance, or other assistance, which baseline information would then be used to populate other linked platforms and forms.

6

(b) Through a series of initial questions written in plain English, elicit from the SRL the legal issue or problem.

(c) Determining whether an intervention via legal aid for advice and assistance is preferable to avoid litigation, if possible and what resources are available.

(d) Guiding the SRL through the court system, clerk’s office, and Portal if litigation is imminent or in process.

(e) Introduce the SRL to the rules of court, and a standardized, easily understood statement of the requirements of representing yourself in Florida’s courts.

(f) Provide specific instruction on minimizing sensitive information under rule 2.425, observing the confidentiality requirements of rule 2.420, the signature and certifications requirements of a filer under rule 2.515 (will eventually apply to SRLs, in addition to attorneys), and ADA compliance under rule 2.526.

(g) Guided instructions on accessing and completing the appropriate form for the matter in litigation.

(h) The ability at any time to apply for pro bono assistance through a legal aid provider, if financially eligible, which eligibility requirements would be established during registration). D. Education.

The Young Lawyers Division (YLD) of The Florida Bar and law students would be a tremendous resource to assist with outreach and education on a statewide basis and locally, providing information and assistance about the new SRL initiatives offered through the standing committee to afford SRLs access to the courts. Instructional videos, resource materials, and guided tours would be maintained on the Portal and accessible by those offering training and guidance to SRLs. Law students and lawyers offering SRL training and answering questions at virtual help desks would be eligible for pro bono credit hours through TFB. Helpdesks, kiosks, videos, handbooks, and similar materials should be available and distributed through local bar associations, law libraries, and clerks’ offices. To ease the burden of clerks and OSCA, lawyers would be recruited to volunteer 2 hours per month (on rotating shifts) and be available Monday through Friday during regular business hours to answer questions routed from virtual help desks, receiving pro bono credit.

7

Promotion, recruitment, implementation and management could be a very successful program of the YLD.

E. Pilot Program.

Upon the Court’s approval of the SRL initiative program but before implementation, several clerks of would be requested to pilot this program in order to identify areas for improvement and correction. It is recommended that each local pilot should last up to six (6) months. The testing results, observations and recommendations from the initiative would then be reported to the FCTC and the Court before final implementation.

F. Final Recommendations.

These would be subject to and follow the experience of the pilot programs, with an expanded panel and, perhaps, town hall-type forums hosted by certain voluntary bar associations around the state before a final report is submitted to the Court for consideration. Any final recommendation would also include the question of whether e-filing/eservice should be mandatory by SRL and, if so, by when. This evaluation should include an assessment of whether all filers, particularly those in professional positions, have moved to mandatory e-filing. If mandatory for SRLs, then certain opt-out provisions would need to be established.