Adherence to the principles of “No Backdated Entries” and “No Amendments, Corrections or Deletions to CCS Entries, Once Made” has become far more crucial in the electronic information age than we could have ever imagined when the Supreme Court in 1990 amended Trial Rule 77.
“When Trial Rule 77 was amended in 1990, over one hundred and fifty years of practice and tradition were revised. Recordkeeping in the courts of Indiana entered a new phase. Courts became ‘information managers’.” That was a byline for an article in the spring, 1996 issue of the Indiana Court Times. The article reiterated some of the essential elements of the new court information management system launched in 1990 with the amendment of Trial Rule 77.
In a memo to all trial courts, dated January 14, 1991, the then Executive Director of the Division of State Court Administration discussed the key elements of the new (paper at the time) recordkeeping system by saying:
“Backdated Entries: An often-repeated anxiety expressed by many court employees is the problem of backdating entries in the Chronological Case Summary (CCS) and Record of Judgments and Orders (RJO). We appreciate this concern and recognize that, depending on prior practices, the principle of contemporaneous entry embodied in the new information management system might necessitate some courts to alter existing procedure. The primary function of the new judicial information management system is to accurately reflect the activity of a court and maintain information in a useful and correct format for as long as needed. The CCS should accurately describe the events of litigation, and the RJO should record significant decisions. In this system, the date of events is crucial, not only because of the necessity for honesty but also because it serves as a locator of information. The prior practice of backdating orders and inserting them in Order Books as delayed entries is inconsistent with the rule.”
The letter goes on to provide examples, which still hold valid. Imagine that a person gets a certified copy of a CCS on December 1, which shows no activity in the CCS for the prior two weeks. On December 2, two orders are brought to the clerk’s office and noted on the CCS. But because the judge’s signature is dated November 28, the clerk backdates the CCS entry to November 28. This action makes the December 1 CCS entry misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.
For example, if an order dismissing a Motion for Summary Judgment is received in the clerk’s office on May 15 but states that the judge signed it on May 10, the CCS should read “May 15, 2008—Received Order Dismissing Motion for Summary Judgment, signed May 10, 2008. RJO date—May 15, 2008.” Anyone reviewing the CCS for the case prior to May 15 would see no information about a decision on the Motion for Summary Judgment. And if the court is posting its CCS information on the Internet, as are the majority of courts, that whole electronic world now knows that there has been no decision rendered on the Motion for Summary Judgment as of May 15, 2008.
Imagine the dismay and even worse reactions when, on May 16, the CCS suddenly shows that the motion was dismissed on May 10! Similarly, it takes little imagination to see how amending a CCS entry after it has already been posted on the Internet, without any explanation or notation of the change, would create two conflicting records, depending on the particular time that a user happened to view the entry.
The CCS is an official court record. Using dates that do not accurately reflect the date that an order is placed in the public record, plugging in CCS entries where they don’t belong, and changing CCS entries without indicating that a correction is being made, are not just bad practices – they misrepresent the official record. If such practices are done repeatedly with intent to misrepresent the actual date of court activities, they could rise to the level of ethical violations.
Old habits die hard, particularly in the court setting where tradition, prior practices, and continuity are valued. Although these principles have been in place since 1990 and continue to be reiterated, some courts and clerks offices are still struggling to develop business processes that allow them to accurately reflect the chronology of events in a case. Thus, it is important for courts, clerks and their staffs to review periodically the Trial Rule 77 Quick Guide at courts.in.gov/admin/pubs/tr77-quick-guide.pdf.
In addition, Division staff is available to conduct on-site training on these and related information management topics. Requests for customized local trainings may be directed to Jim Walker, Director of Trial Court Management, at 317.234.5562 or [email protected].