Sharing with everyone (without technical confirmation by Amitabh). This document was written to help educate the policy makers (Judges and court administrators) of the role of identity management primarily in the context of privileged case access. CA Rules of Court were ambiguous on what information could be shared on-line with: - Litigants - Attorneys - Legal Aids - Justice Partners - And a few other groups For the real wonky amongst you here are the proposed rules…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SPR18-37.pdf This narrative tries to explain how identity management (especially with respect to justice partner access) can improve access. It foreshadows other use cases but the gist was to address a concern coming out of various committees that we should not allow privileged electronic access because the risk was too high or the technical burden was too big. The identity management solution is being extended to: - SRLs (Orange county taking first crack at it) - Attorneys (LA will release before year end) - E-Filing (requirement that EFM vendors and E-Filing Service Providers adopt/leverage a Court identity solution) - Telephonic appearance reservations - Traffic payment plans Use it as you see fit. It’s a discuss/education document. Snorri Attachment: Identity and Access Management Glossary of Terms revised Sept 2018.docx Description: Identity and Access Management Glossary of Terms revised Sept 2018.docx