Right, but this happens automatically based upon time.

The mixed reactions were

1. There isn’t a chance to argue with the judge in an automated system. Maybe extenuating circumstances need to be talked about and this step is cut out by a computer deciding to notify the judge that a continuance should be given due to time.

2. It’s another system to be paid attention to when lawyers desks usually have cases on paper, in folders, in a briefcase. It’s hard to break tradition.

Ah so the fundamental misunderstanding is that you did not understand how the process works and so you proposed a platform that didn't work with existing processes, and so was rejected by essentially everyone you talked to.

Continuances are discretionary. Judges are already quite good about handling extenuating circumstances on their own. AIs can barely understand simple human speech; they are nowhere close to notifying judges about whether continuances are appropriate.

And I'm not sure why you keep pushing this--the problem you've addressed is not a major problem in our court system (or even a minor problem) and the solution isn't worth more investment of time/effort than as an extremely minor feature in a court docketing/filing system.

As I clearly stated. I shelved that project. My original post was to offer the work I had done to someone else versus it sitting on a shelf :-).

As a criminal lawyer, you reply like a lawyer. I’ve lost interest in your retorts so I’ll move on.