Journal of Dispute Resolution Journal of Dispute Resolution
Volume 2023 Issue 1 Article 11
2023
Why Missouri State Courts Should Implement an Online Dispute Why Missouri State Courts Should Implement an Online Dispute
Resolution Platform to Resolve Tra6c Tickets, Warrants and Resolution Platform to Resolve Tra6c Tickets, Warrants and
Please, and Misdemeanors Please, and Misdemeanors
Emma Wormington
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr
Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Emma Wormington,
Why Missouri State Courts Should Implement an Online Dispute Resolution Platform
to Resolve Tra6c Tickets, Warrants and Please, and Misdemeanors
, 2023 J. Disp. Resol. ()
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2023/iss1/11
This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of
Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Dispute Resolution by an authorized
editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
WHY MISSOURI STATE COURTS
SHOULD IMPLEMENT AN ONLINE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLATFORM TO
RESOLVE TRAFFIC TICKETS,
WARRANTS AND PLEAS, AND
MISDEMEANORS
Emma Wormington
*
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overview
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID forced United States
courts to abruptly change various processes as a result of an urgent requirement that
all court proceedings be conducted virtually.
1
Prior to the pandemic, courts tradi-
tionally used various audio and video technologies primarily to supplement court
processes to ensure efficiency and accessibility.
2
However, beginning in March
2020, courts shut their doors to the general public in order to mitigate the spread of
COVID.
3
Courts quickly shifted many court processes to online platforms if re-
sources were available to do so, and subsequently relied on those online platforms
while courts were closed.
4
Generally, courts had not relied on electronic communications (e.g., Webex, or
similar video-based platforms) to conduct routine proceedings—such as criminal
defendants’ first appearances—until the COVID pandemic forced courts to
*
B.A., University of Kansas, 2019; J.D. Candidate, University of Missouri School of Law, 2023; Asso-
ciate Member, Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2021-2022. I am grateful to Professor Christina Wells for
her insight, guidance, and support during the writing of this Note, as well as the Journal of Dispute
Resolution for its help in the editing process.
1. JOINT TECH. COMM., JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES ON ODR AND VIRTUAL COURT PROCESSES (2020),
https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/40978/JTC-Judicial-Perspectives-on-ODR-and-
Other-Virtual-
Court-Processes.pdf. The COVID-19 pandemic began in mid-March 2020, id. Courts shut down as a
result of severe limitations on in-person gatherings, id. Instead of traditional in-person court operations,
courts shifted to virtual processes in an attempt to continue court operations, id.
2. See id.; Herbert B. Dixon, The Basics of a Technology-Enhanced Courtroom, A.B.A.
(Nov. 1,
2017), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/judges_journal/2017/fall/basics-tech-
nologyenhanced-courtroom (examples of technology used to supplement court processes include video
displays, monitors at the witness stand, evidence cameras, laptop connections, electronic storage of ex-
hibits, and software for video conferencing).
3. Sup. Ct. Mo., Order In re: Response to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic, MO.
CTS., (Mar. 22, 2020), https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=153093.
4. JOINT TECH. COMM., supra note 1.
1
Wormington: Why Missouri State Courts Should Implement an Online Dispute Reso
Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository,
No. 1] Missouri Courts Should Implement Online Dispute Resolution 149
consider these online platforms as an alternative to traditional, in-court proceed-
ings.
5
Beyond using electronic communications to conduct routine procedural hear-
ings, a small number of courts even conducted virtual bench trials and virtual jury
trials.
6
The courts’ ability to adopt virtual technologies in a quick manner enabled
them “to continue to do the functions essential for the judicial branch.”
7
Despite the U.S. court system’s ability to pivot to virtual technologies and their
success in doing so, courts across the country are backlogged with a large accumu-
lation of pending cases two years into the pandemic.
8
Missouri state courts are no
exception. For example, a St. Louis, Missouri court is running approximately 1,900
cases behind on its docket, which is higher than its pre-pandemic normal backlog.
9
An online dispute resolution (hereinafter “ODR”) platform, used to resolve traffic
violations, warrants and pleas, and certain misdemeanors, would alleviate some of
the burden on the Missouri state court system by increasing judicial efficiency and
accessibility, and directly combat the backlogged docket issue by quickly moving
minor cases through the court system.
10
B. Background – Missouri
Missouri state courts are continuing to manage the case backlog due to court
shutdowns and navigating the challenges of virtual court proceedings in COVID
times.
11
Like other courts across the country, Missouri state courts were required
to shut their doors to the general public in order to mitigate the spread of COVID.
12
In March 2020, the Missouri Supreme Court suspended in-person proceedings.
13
The Missouri Supreme Court stated that “[d]espite the suspension of in-person court
proceedings, Missouri courts still must continue to carry out the core, constitutional
functions of the Missouri judiciary as prescribed by law and continue to uphold the
constitutional rights of litigants seeking redress in any Missouri court.”
14
Like
5. As Pandemic Lingers, Courts Lean Into Virtual Technology, U.S. COURTS (Feb. 18, 2021),
https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2021/02/18/pandemic-lingers-courts-lean-virtual-technology.
6. Id. (“As the coronavirus (COVID-19) has dragged on, a small number of courts have adapted
electronic proceedings to meet more challenging situations. Several courts have conducted virtual bench
trials, which do not require a jury. … In perhaps the most ambitious experiment yet, the Western District
of Washington recently began holding all-virtual jury trials in civil lawsuits.”).
7. JOINT TECH. COMM., supra note 1.
8. Griff Witte & Mark Berman, Long After the Courts Shut Down for COVID, the Pain of Delayed
Justice, WASH. POST (Dec. 19, 2021, 6:00 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/covid-court-
backlog-justice-delayed/2021/12/18/212c16bc-5948-11ec-a219-9b4ae96da3b7_story.html.
9. Christine Byers, St. Louis Court Backlog Hits 1,900 Cases, KSDK (Feb. 9, 2021, 6:29 PM),
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/st-louis-court-backlog-hits-1900-cases/63-bdca4a71-ec2f-
4c05-91b2-037f821f45dc. The increase in backlog is largely attributable to COVID – restricting access
to the courthouse may mitigate the spread of COVID, but it also has limited the ability to hold jury trials.
Criminal defendants are face three options: accepting a plea offer, proceeding with a bench trial, or
holding out for a jury trial.
10. Amy Schmitz, Expanding Access to Remedies through E-Court Initiatives, 67 BUFF. L. REV. 89,
91 (2019).
11. See Byers, supra note 9.
12. See Statutory and Constitutional Speedy Trial Rights in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic:
Missouri, AEQUITAS (2020), https://innovativeprosecutionsolutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09
/Missouri-Speedy-Trial-and-COVID-19-1.pdf.
13. Id.
14. Sup. Ct. Mo., Order In re: Response to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic, MO.
CTS., (Mar. 22, 2020), https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=153093.
2
Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 2023, Iss. 1 [], Art. 11
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2023/iss1/11
150 JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 2023
courts across the country, Missouri courts shifted to alternative technologies like
teleconferencing and video conferencing in light of the court shutdowns.
15
The Missouri Supreme Court noted several exceptions to the blanket prohibi-
tion of in-person proceedings, including “proceedings necessary to protect the con-
stitutional rights of criminal defendants,” “proceedings … pertaining to juvenile
delinquency and abuse, neglect, and termination of parental rights,” emergency
child custody orders, and mental health orders.
16
Subject to the discretion of each
presiding judge, the court must hold these proceedings in person if alternative tech-
nologies were not suitable.
17
The court recognized that certain types of cases were
not suitable, or incapable, of resolution through technology-based services like
video conferencing.
18
Ultimately Missouri state courts were able to pivot and successfully utilize
technologies like Webex amidst COVID court shutdowns.
19
However, the Missouri
state court system was affected immensely, and the court system is continuing to
manage the case backlog.
20
For example, criminal defendants detained in Missouri
were the most impacted because jury trials were at a standstill—fewer jurors in the
courthouse may have mitigated the spread of COVID, but it also hindered the jury
trial process.
21
Without jury trials, criminal defendants waited longer for their day
in front of a jury. Those against waiting for their jury trial had only two options to
accelerate the disposition of their case: proceed with a bench trial or accept a plea
offer.
22
Because of COVID and state-wide court shutdowns, Missouri courts be-
came stagnant and increasingly backlogged, more so than before the pandemic.
To alleviate some of the burden on the Missouri state court system, Missouri
courts should implement an online dispute resolution platform to resolve traffic vi-
olations, warrants and pleas, and misdemeanors.
23
An ODR platform will positively
impact the Missouri state court system because it will (1) increase judicial effi-
ciency and accessibility, (2) prevent the issuance of warrants, and (3) directly re-
duce the backlogged docket problem by quickly moving relatively minor cases
through the court system.
24
This Note proceeds in four parts. Part II discusses various aspects of online
dispute resolution, including a brief history and general advantages of supplement-
ing the U.S. court system with online dispute resolution. Part III examines (1) how
the U.S. court system is currently using online dispute resolution services; (2) the
15. See Sup. Ct. Mo., Order In re: Response to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic, MO.
CTS., (Mar. 22, 2020), https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=153093; Alexander S. Gillis, Definition:
teleconference, TECH TARGET, https://www.techtarget.com/searchunifiedcommunications/defini-
tion/teleconference (last visited Sept. 16, 2022) (teleconferencing generally involves communication be-
tween two devices with only an audio component, whereas video conferencing is the communication
between two devices with both an audio and a video component).
16. Sup. Ct. Mo., Order In re: Response to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic, MO.
CTS., (Mar. 22, 2020), https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=153093.
17. Id.
18. See generally id.
19. 2020 ~ Courts Shift to Remote Proceedings During COVID-19 Pandemic, MO. CTS,
https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=174582 (last visited Sept. 16, 2022).
20. Byers, supra note 9.
21. See Byers, supra note 9.
22. Byers, supra note 9.
23. See ODR Solutions, MATTERHORN BY CT. INNOVATIONS, https://getmatterhorn.com/odr-solutions
(last visited Sep. 16, 2022).
24. Schmitz, supra note 10.
3
Wormington: Why Missouri State Courts Should Implement an Online Dispute Reso
Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository,
No. 1] Missouri Courts Should Implement Online Dispute Resolution 151
distinction between technology used to support courts and court-related ODR plat-
forms; (3) examples of ODR platforms used to streamline court-related processes;
and (4) an example of another state-level jurisdictions using an ODR platform. Part
IV addresses the practical implications and challenges that Missouri may face when
implementing an ODR platform. This Note argues that the Missouri court system
should implement an online dispute resolution (“ODR”) platform to resolve traffic
tickets, warrants and pleas, and misdemeanors.
II. AN OVERVIEW OF ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In courts across the United States, online dispute resolution is an up-and-com-
ing method of resolving certain types of cases that are typically disposed of in the
traditional court systems.
25
Various jurisdictions across the country have started
using ODR platforms to increase judicial efficiency and accessibility to courts.
26
ODR platforms have the potential to immensely impact U.S. court systems with the
number of advantages they provide.
27
A. Brief History of Online Dispute Resolution
Online dispute resolution “refers to a broad set of technologies meant to either
supplement or replace ways in which people have traditionally resolved their dis-
putes.”
28
ODR is a form of alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”).
29
ODR “builds
upon the foundational characteristics” of ADR, specifically accessibility and effi-
ciency in resolving conflict and disputes.
30
The emergence of ODR aligns with the emergence of digital commercial trans-
actions.
31
One looming question for courts in the mid-1990s concerned the juris-
diction and method of resolution for disputes arising from online transactions.
32
A
key development in the field of ODR was the website eBay.
33
Founded in 1995,
eBay is an e-commerce platform that allows consumers to buy and sell products.
34
In addition to facilitating transactions, eBay offers parties an online platform to
quickly and efficiently settle their disputes online.
35
The number of disputes that
25. Online Dispute Resolution, RESOL. SYS. INST., https://www.aboutrsi.org/special-topics/online-
dispute-resolution (last visited Sept. 15, 2022).
26. Schmitz, supra note 10 at 91, 115, 117. Broadly speaking, states such as Michigan, Ohio, and New
York have started to use court-related ODR, id. Michigan implemented its pilot program in its state
courts at the county level, id. Utah and Texas are other examples of states that plan to offer ODR, id.
27. See Schmitz, supra note 10 at 91, 115, 117.
28. Online Dispute Resolution, supra note 25.
29. Online Dispute Resolution, supra note 25.
30. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 91.
31. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 91.
32. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 91.
33. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 91.
34. What is eBay? [H]ow Does ebay Work?, ECOMMERCE PLATFORMS, https://ecommerce-plat-
forms.com/glossary/what-is-ebay (last visited Sept. 15, 2022).
35. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 91; Online Dispute Resolution, supra note 25; Louis F Del Duca et al.,
eBay’s De Facto Low Value High Volume Resolution Process: Lessons and Best Practices for ODR
Systems Designers, ARB. L. REV. 204, 206–07 (2014). First, eBay asks the buyer to diagnose the specifics
of their complaint and to suggest a preferred resolution, then eBay then encourages the buyers and sellers
to communicate directly through its messaging platform, id. If the matter cannot be resolved through
negotiation, the dispute then goes to the Resolution Services team, who evaluates the buyer’s claims and
makes the final decision, id.
4
Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 2023, Iss. 1 [], Art. 11
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2023/iss1/11
152 JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 2023
eBay’s platform resolves each year—60 million—proves that ODR is capable of
efficiently resolving an immense number of cases without the intervention of our
traditional court system.
36
Amazon and PayPal are other examples of websites that
offer free ODR programs similar to eBay.
37
Jurisdictions outside of the United States were the first to apply ODR to their
court systems.
38
For example, Canada, the United Kingdom, and China have al-
ready implemented ODR pilot projects in their court systems.
39
Although ODR is
in its early stages in U.S. courts,
40
some state-level jurisdictions across the country
have started to implement and embrace ODR to help “manag[e] their caseloads,
improv[e] outcomes, and better serv[e] litigants.”
41
ODR is being used in more than
50 county statewide court systems in the U.S., and the number of jurisdictions using
court related ODR is predicted to increase from these 2019 statistics.
42
Because of
the benefits and success of ODR in state courts,
43
an ODR program will similarly
positively impact the Missouri state court system by increasing judicial efficiency
and directly reducing the backlogged docket.
B. Advantages of Supplementing the U.S. Court System with Online
Dispute Resolution
ODR is advantageous to the traditional U.S. court system and litigants because
it will help mitigate the court docket backlog and streamline the court system.
44
Two key benefits of using ODR platforms are efficiency and accessibility.
45
In
terms of judicial efficiency, ODR is more efficient than traditional judicial proceed-
ings.
46
The less-complex cases that typically overload dockets
47
and consume nu-
merous judicial resources are best suited for ODR. ODR can push these cases
through the system more quickly because ODR platforms can “be accessed anytime,
anywhere, and is not reliant upon the parties and the court.”
48
Similarly, in terms
of efficiency for litigants, ODR allows litigants to bypass in-person judicial
36. Online Dispute Resolution, supra note 25.
37. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 101.
38. Online Dispute Resolution Moves From E-Commerce to the Courts, PEW CHARITABLE TR. (June
4, 2019), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2019/06/04/online-dispute-reso-
lution-moves-from-e-commerce-to-the-courts (“Court ODR was pioneered outside of the United States
in places such as Singapore, the Netherlands, and Canada.”); Colin Rule, Using Online Dispute Resolu-
tion to Expand Access to Justice, OKLA. BAR J. (Aug., 2019) (British Columbia’s ODR handled almost
14,000 small claims cases in its first seven months of operation, and “[g]overnment money and personnel
that used to be devoted to small-claims cases – including judges, sheriffs, clerks and others – are being
redirected to reduce the backlog of criminal and family law cases.”).
39. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 125.
40. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 104.
41. Online Dispute Resolution, supra note 25.
42. Online Dispute Resolution Moves From E-Commerce to the Courts, supra note 38.
43. See e.g., supra Section III B(ii).
44. See Schmitz, supra note 10, at 91; ODR Solutions, supra note 23.
45. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 91.
46. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 104
47. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 104.
48. JOINT TECH. COMM., JTC RESOURCE BULLETIN: ODR FOR COURTS (2017) (“For example, the
online traffic pleading system implemented in several Michigan district courts has reduced the time to
resolution for disputed cases from months to days, though all parties still ‘came to the table’ — the
offender, law enforcement, and the judge or magistrate.”).
5
Wormington: Why Missouri State Courts Should Implement an Online Dispute Reso
Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository,
No. 1] Missouri Courts Should Implement Online Dispute Resolution 153
proceedings for minor cases that may not even require an attorney and could easily
be resolved in an online forum.
49
Furthermore, ODR increases accessibility to remedies and justice.
50
An inter-
net-based platform has the potential to reach a larger number of litigants and give
those litigants an easier means to resolve disputes.
51
Although some types of cases
require only one court appearance, some individuals with physical barriers may
struggle to appear in court.
52
Individuals with low-paying jobs may not be able to
take time off of work or afford childcare.
53
Others may live at a significant distance
from the jurisdiction or courthouse.
54
Furthermore, some individuals may experi-
ence anxiety about appearing in person.
55
ODR would generally resolve many of
these issues by increasing accessibility.
56
III. HOW THE U.S. COURT SYSTEM IS CURRENTLY USING ONLINE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION
Court-related ODR platforms are distinguishable from the support technology
that U.S. Courts used during court shutdowns and throughout the COVID pan-
demic.
57
Support technology, such as Webex and other platforms, provides the
court with an interface to accomplish specific tasks, including virtual hearings and
preparing and filing court documents online.
58
In contrast, court-related ODR plat-
forms assist litigants in parts of their case or resolve their case entirely.
59
ODR
providers offer assistance in different areas of the legal system, including small
claims, commercial claims, family law, traffic violations, and warrants and pleas.
60
A. Court-related ODR Platforms vs. Technology Used to Support
Courts
Court-related online dispute resolution and technology used to support court
rooms are distinguishable in several ways. First, court-related ODR is a platform
that operates exclusively online without any in-person appearances before the
court.
61
Support technology is used to accomplish specific tasks related to
49. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 104.
50. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 104.
51. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 104.
52. JOINT TECH. COMM, supra note 48, at 7.
53. JOINT TECH. COMM, supra note 48, at 7.
54. JOINT TECH. COMM, supra note 48, at 7.
55. JOINT TECH. COMM, supra note 48, at 7 (“ODR also removes much of the anxiety individuals may
experience over appearing in person to address any issue, but particularly to address uncomfortable or
threatening issues like outstanding warrants, overdue fees, tickets, immigration status, domestic vio-
lence, and other legal matters.”).
56. JOINT TECH. COMM, supra note 48, at 7.
57. What is ODR?, NAT’L CR. FOR STATE CTS., https://www.ncsc.org/odr/guidance-and-tools (last
visited Sept. 11, 2022).
58. Id.
59. Id.
60. See AMY J. SCHMITZ & JANET MARTINEZ, ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: THEORY AND
PRACTICE: A TREATISE ON TECHNOLOGY AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION 2–11 (Mohamed S. Abdel Wahab
et al. eds. 2021).
61. What is ODR?, supra note 57.
6
Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 2023, Iss. 1 [], Art. 11
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2023/iss1/11
154 JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 2023
traditional in-court proceedings, e.g., e-filing and video hearings.
62
For example,
Turbocourt is used to help prepare and file court documents online (“e-filing”).
63
Another example is Webex, which is an online video and audio conferencing plat-
form that was used by courts during COVID to conduct video hearings.
64
These
two platforms were used to accomplish specific tasks related to traditional in-court
proceedings—preparing and filing documents and conducting hearings virtually.
65
In contrast, ODR platforms operate exclusively online without any of these connec-
tions to traditional court procedures.
66
A second, related difference between court-related ODR and support technol-
ogy used in courtrooms is that ODR participants utilize ODR platforms for parts of,
or for the entirety of, their case.
67
Support technology merely assist judicial or court
staff in conducting procedures and decision-making.
68
There are many types of ODR providers in the United States.
69
One chart cat-
egorizes ODR providers by (1) subject matter, (2) function, and (3) whether it pro-
vides ADR or ODR.
70
ODR platforms reach a wide variety of legal matters, includ-
ing commercial claims, small claims, consumer claims, civil claims, divorce pro-
ceedings, family law, traffic violations, and warrants and pleas.
71
Few ODR providers offer services to resolve traffic violations and minor crim-
inal offenses. One example of such a provider is Judicial Innovations.
72
Judicial
Innovations is an online traffic resolution system that focuses entirely on resolving
traffic court cases.
73
Instead of an entire court docket devoted to traffic court in
each jurisdiction, this online system resolves and disposes of traffic citations in an
efficient manner.
74
Another example of this type of ODR provider, discussed in
depth in Part III(B), is Matterhorn by Court Innovations (“Matterhorn”).
75
Univer-
sity of Michigan law professor J.J. Prescott and student Ben Gubernick created Mat-
terhorn in 2014.
76
Prescott waited four hours and missed a day of work to appear
in court for a traffic ticket.
77
Around this time, the two “brainstorm[ed] an online
resolution program to help with the backlog of outstanding warrants in the court
system,” and decided to include resolution of traffic tickets and other minor legal
offenses in this online resolution program.
78
62. What is ODR?, supra note 57.
63. TURBO CT., https://info.turbocourt.com (last visited Sept. 11, 2022).
64. Join a Meeting, U.S. CTS., https://us-courts.webex.com/webappng/sites/us-courts/dash-
board/home (last visited Sept. 11, 2022).
65. See id.; TURBO CT., supra note 63.
66. What is ODR?, supra note 57.
67. What is ODR?, supra note 57.
68. What is ODR?, supra note 57.
69. SCHMITZ & MARTINEZ, supra note 60.
70. SCHMITZ & MARTINEZ, supra note 60.
71. SCHMITZ & MARTINEZ, supra note 60.
72. Online Traffic Resolution System, JUD. INNOVATIONS, https://www.judicialinnovation.com/
online-traffic-resolution (last visited Sept. 11, 2022).
73. See id.
74. Id.
75. ODR Solutions, supra note 23.
76. Anna Stolley Persky, Home Court Advantage Michigan Program Allows People to Contest Traffic
Tickets and Handle Other Minor Legal Matters Online Instead of in Court in 102 A.B.A. JOURNAL 16,
17 (2016); About Us, MATTERHORN BY CT. INNOVATIONS, https://getmatterhorn.com/about-us/ (last vis-
ited Sept. 14, 2022).
77. Persky, supra note 76.
78. Persky, supra note 76.
7
Wormington: Why Missouri State Courts Should Implement an Online Dispute Reso
Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository,
No. 1] Missouri Courts Should Implement Online Dispute Resolution 155
Matterhorn is now used by more than 150 courts, lawyers, and municipalities
in over 20 states.
79
Matterhorn is used to resolve many types of cases, including
civil and small claims disputes,
80
traffic citations, minor misdemeanors,
81
warrants,
and pleas.
82
Each jurisdiction first implements Matterhorn as a traffic ticket online
resolution program, and then the jurisdiction can expand access to a wider variety
of cases such as small claims, warrant, and pleas.
83
B. A Closer Examination of Matterhorn and an Example of a State-
level Jurisdiction Using an ODR Platform
i. A Closer Look at Matterhorn
Matterhorn is a unique ODR platform because it is the only platform that has
extended its services into criminal law matters.
84
ODR for warrant prevention, war-
rant resolution, and pleas is beneficial for the court, the citizens, and the commu-
nity.
85
Each of these three types of matters is resolved through a step-by-step pro-
cess, and each offers distinct benefits.
86
Matterhorn offers online warrant prevention management, which helps individ-
uals “avoid adding to [their] open warrants by notifying people and averting the
warrant before it happens.”
87
The warrant prevention program works directly with
the court or jurisdiction’s case management system to communicate all relevant in-
formation and scheduling about the case.
88
First, the court notifies the individual
79. ODR Solutions, supra note 23.
80. Civil Case Online Resolution, MATTERHORN BY CT. INNOVATIONS, https://getmatter-
horn.com/odr-solutions/civil/ (last visited Sept. 15, 2022) (examples of civil case types include payments
disputes, property management disputes, income and property tax cases, foreclosure, landlord-tenant,
licensing, unemployment claims, retirement, benefits, workers compensation, and utilities).
81. ODR Solutions, supra note 23 (examples include traffic citations, parking citations, minor civil
infractions, and minor misdemeanors).
82. Warrant and Pleas, MATTERHORN BY CT. INNOVATIONS, https://getmatterhorn.com/odr-solu-
tions/warrants-pleas/, (last visited Sept. 15, 2022). Online warrant prevention helps you avoid adding to
your open warrants by averting the warrant, id. The program notifies the individual before a failure-to-
appear warrant is issued and then works with the person to address the issue, id. The program also helps
those with outstanding warrants to clear their warrant by offering an online way of communicating with
the court, id. Finally, online plea converts the traditionally slow plea-by-mail process to a quick, digital
process, id. Plea online is an alternative for those who do not work or live nearby, are incarcerated, or
have a significant barrier to attend court, id.
83. Traffic Solutions, MATTERHORN BY CT. INNOVATIONS, https://getmatterhorn.com/odr-solu-
tions/traffic/, (last visited Sept. 15, 2022).
84. Warrant Prevention, MATTERHORN BY CT. INNOVATIONS, https://getmatterhorn.com/odr-solu-
tions/warrants-pleas/warrant-prevention/, (last visited Sept. 15, 2022); Warrant Resolution,
MATTERHORN BY CT. INNOVATIONS, https://getmatterhorn.com/odr-solutions/warrants-pleas/warrant-
resolution/, (last visited Sept. 15, 2022); Plea Online, MATTERHORN BY CT. INNOVATIONS,
https://getmatterhorn.com/odr-solutions/warrants-pleas/plea-online/, (last visited Sept. 15, 2022).
85. Warrant Prevention, supra note 84; Warrant Resolution, supra note 84; Plea Online, supra note
84.
86. Warrant Prevention, supra note 84; Warrant Resolution, supra note 84; Plea Online, supra note
84.
87. Warrant Prevention, supra note 84.
88. Warrant Prevention, supra note 84.
8
Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 2023, Iss. 1 [], Art. 11
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2023/iss1/11
156 JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 2023
before the warrant is issued.
89
Second, users take steps to resolve the warrant.
90
The third and final step is the court may reschedule the court date and avert the
warrant.
91
Warrant prevention is beneficial to courts because it avoids adding to
court backlog by preventing new warrants and saving staff time.
92
Furthermore,
warrant prevention is beneficial to law enforcement because it limits the number of
active warrants in the jurisdiction and averts transportation and incarceration
costs.
93
Finally, it is beneficial to the public because it is mobile, on-demand, and
convenient for those who cannot take time off work or travel to the courthouse.
94
Matterhorn also offers online warrant resolution, which operates similarly to
warrant prevention and offers similar benefits to the court and the public.
95
Indi-
viduals may not resolve their legal obligations promptly, either by failing to comply
intentionally or accidentally.
96
For those who fail to pay, the court may issue a
failure-to-pay warrant.
97
Individuals with outstanding warrants fear arrest or may
not be able to appear in court due to work, school, childcare, or financial reasons.
98
Because of this, “courts accumulate a backlog of open warrants,”
99
which directly
contributes to the court docket backlog problem.
The process of using the warrant resolution program begins when people search
Matterhorn for open warrants.
100
Next, if a person has any open warrants, they are
given an opportunity to explain to the court why they missed their payment or hear-
ing.
101
In some instances, a person can request a payment plan or a new hearing.
102
The court ultimately reviews each request, accepts or rejects it, and creates a pay-
ment plan or schedules a new hearing if applicable.
103
Matterhorn then notifies
users of any important dates and changes to the status of their cases.
104
Online
89. Warrant Prevention, supra note 84 (“Once the court determines a person has entered “pre-war-
rant” status, the system notifies them via: SMS (text messages), email messages, and traditional postcard
mailings. These messages include instructions on how to resolve a case online and invites the individual
the court’s online warrant intervention URL.”).
90. Warrant Prevention, supra note 84 (“After people become aware of their potential warrant(s), they
are able to begin the steps to resolve it. The first step is to enter their case information on the website
and answer questions as to why they did not pay their fines or appear in court on their scheduled date.
This information has provided valuable insight into barriers to access - including being unable to take
time off of work, or to arrange transportation, as well as financial challenges and the ability to pay. In
addition, the court staff is able to read through these messages with more efficiency than addressing them
in individual in-person meetings or phone calls, and can expedite the court date rescheduling process.”).
91. Warrant Prevention, supra note 84 (“Once the individual has submitted their case information,
the process is mostly finished. The information is forwarded to the senior criminal clerk who is able to
reset the show-cause hearing date once if satisfied with the citizen’s explanation. In some instances, the
clerk will consult with the judge offline. However, the majority of people receive a new court date and
their countdown to a warrant being issued is reset as they work to resolve their case.”).
92. Warrant Prevention, supra note 84.
93. Warrant Prevention, supra note 84.
94. Warrant Prevention, supra note 84.
95. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
96. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
97. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
98. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
99. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
100. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84 (“From a link on [the court’s] website, people can search online
within Matterhorn to check if they have eligible FTA or FTP warrants. People see if they have any open
warrants, then learn what they must do to resolve them.”).
101. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
102. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
103. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
104. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
9
Wormington: Why Missouri State Courts Should Implement an Online Dispute Reso
Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository,
No. 1] Missouri Courts Should Implement Online Dispute Resolution 157
warrant resolution provides similar benefits as warrant resolution as it reduces court
backlog by resolving open warrants.
105
A final example of Matterhorn’s criminal law ODR services is its online plea
entry.
106
Online plea entry is quicker and more efficient than traditional plea entry
by mail or by appearance.
107
Online pleas are particularly beneficial to those with
eligible cases that may not live or work nearby the court or jurisdiction, who are
incarcerated, or who have a significant barrier to appearing in court.
108
Courts de-
cide whether cases are eligible for online plea and whether to accept or deny your
online plea.
109
The process of resolving pleas online begins when people click a link on the
jurisdiction’s website and search within Matterhorn to check if their case is eligible
for online resolution.
110
If the case is eligible, the user will submit a plea request
online.
111
Next, the court initiates judicial review, where a magistrate or judge re-
views the request and can either accept or reject the plea.
112
Finally, if the magis-
trate or judge accepts the plea, all parties can agree, digitally sign, and the hearing
or sentencing can occur.
113
Digital plea entry is primarily beneficial to courts and
citizens because of its efficiency.
114
Beyond efficiency, online plea entry is useful
if there are geographical or access barriers because it allows users to plead and re-
solve their cases remotely.
115
In sum, Matterhorn is currently the only ODR provider that extends its services
into criminal matters.
116
In regard to warrant prevention, warrant resolution, and
pleas, the implementation of an ODR provider such as Matterhorn will be beneficial
for the court, the citizens, and the community.
117
Using Matterhorn will directly
address the court backlog issue by reducing the number of days that open cases
remain in the system
118
and reducing the number of open warrants.
119
Moreover,
105. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
106. Plea Online, supra note 84.
107. Plea Online, supra note 84 (“Cases are resolved in days, not months.”).
108. Plea Online, supra note 84.
109. Plea Online, supra note 84.
110. Plea Online, supra note 84.
111. Plea Online, supra note 84.
112. Plea Online, supra note 84.
113. Plea Online, supra note 84.
114. See Plea Online, supra note 84 (digital plea entry benefits courts because all parties are able to
sign one final document online; the final forms can be printed or sent to document storage or an e-filing
system; it saves staff time; and it resolves cases in days instead of weeks or months).
115. Plea Online, supra note 84 (digital plea entry benefits users because it enables users to connect
with courts in a safe and trusted way; those with geographical or access barriers (such as incarceration)
can plea and resolve their case; is convenient and free to use; creates a digitally documented case history;
and provides text message and email notifications of plea status).
116. See generally Plea Online, supra note 84; Warrant Prevention, supra note 84; Warrant Resolu-
tion, supra note 84.
117. See generally Plea Online, supra note 84; Warrant Prevention, supra note 84; Warrant Resolu-
tion, supra note 84.
118. Online Resolution Outcomes, MATTERHORN BY CT. INNOVATIONS, https://netcapital.com/
files/a0fef576-d983-487f-bf79-e8e7f9c2fab5/court-innovations_white-paper-1.pdf (last visited Sep. 25,
2022) (“Case closure rates have been significantly reduced for courts using Matterhorn application –
from an average of 50 days before Matterhorn to just 14 days after implementation.”); Persky, supra
note 76, at 18 (“… [A] study of three courts and 17,000 cases revealed a 74 percent reduction in average
days to case resolution with online dispute resolution. A court in Washtenaw County using Matterhorn
reduced case turnover from one or two months to just over seven days.”).
119. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
10
Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 2023, Iss. 1 [], Art. 11
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2023/iss1/11
158 JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 2023
after the COVID pandemic forced court closures, Matterhorn, and ODR in general,
was an innovation of key importance.
120
When the “physical, brick-and-mortar”
courthouse was closed, this platform made legal services accessible.
121
ii. Matterhorn Success in Michigan Jurisdictions
Michigan was one of the first state jurisdictions to set up ODR services through
Matterhorn to facilitate civil matters and criminal infractions.
122
In 2014, Michigan
launched Matterhorn to resolve traffic disputes in four counties, removing the need
for in-person court appearances.
123
After using Matterhorn to resolve traffic dis-
putes, Michigan implemented Matterhorn in jurisdictions beyond the four original
counties and began to use Matterhorn to resolve warrant disputes and misdemean-
ors.
124
Matterhorn conducted a case study analyzing pre-warrant intervention in the
61st District Court, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
125
The court sought a solution to the
jurisdiction’s significant outstanding warrant problem.
126
Prior to the launch of
Matterhorn in this jurisdiction, the 61st District Court issued more than 5,500 bench
warrants per year for citizens who failed to appear in court.
127
The primary goal for
the Matterhorn launch was to reduce the number of new bench warrants issued,
which was predicted to slow the growth of the warrant backlog and save the court
time, money, and energy.
128
The 61st District Court met its warrant prevention goals in its first year using
Matterhorn.
129
The court reached out to people who were about to be issued a fail-
ure-to-appear warrant and invited them to resolve their cases on Matterhorn.
130
Af-
ter notification, 9% of those with eligible cases resolved their case online.
131
In its
first year of use, Matterhorn averted around 9% of failure-to-appear warrants.
132
This means that 550 people avoided arrests and warrants for failure to appear and
were not arrested.
133
In sum, the data from the launches in Michigan jurisdictions
120. Jeff Karoub, Online Court Tool That Reduces Disparities, Virus Spread Wins Annual U-M Inno-
vation Award, MICH. NEWS (Aug. 26, 2020), https://news.umich.edu/online-court-tool-that-reduces-dis-
parities-virus-spread-wins-annual-u-m-innovation-award.
121. Id.
122. Amy Schmitz, Measuring “Access to Justice” in the Rush to Digitize, 88 FORDHAM L. REV. 2381,
2391 (2020); Persky, supra note 76.
123. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 105; Persky, supra note 76 at 18(“Michigan courts began using Mat-
terhorn in 2014, as part of a pilot program approved by the Michigan Supreme Court. According to John
Nevin, communications director for the court, the online dispute resolution platform fit right into the
supreme court’s “strategic objectives” of efficiency, accessibility and innovation.”).
124. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 106.
125. See Warrant Prevention, supra note 84; Online Resolution Outcomes, supra note 118.
126. See generally, Warrant Resolution, supra note 84; Online Resolution Outcomes, supra note 118.
127. Online Traffic Court Platform Provides Lifeline to California Court and the Public, MATTERHORN
BY CT. INNOVATIONS, https://getmatterhorn.com/tag/results/ (last visited Sept. 25, 2022).
128. Online Resolution Outcomes, supra note 118.
129. Warrant Prevention Results, MATTERHORN BY CT. INNOVATIONS, https://getmatterhorn.com/get-
results/warrant-prevention-results/ (last visited Sept. 25, 2022).
130. Id.
131. Id.
132. See id.
133. Id.
11
Wormington: Why Missouri State Courts Should Implement an Online Dispute Reso
Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository,
No. 1] Missouri Courts Should Implement Online Dispute Resolution 159
indicates that the use of an ODR provider like Matterhorn made judicial processes
more efficient and accessible.
134
IV. IMPLEMENTING ODR IN MISSOURI AND AN ANALYSIS OF THE
CHALLENGES
The COVID pandemic only exacerbated the case and court docket backlog
problem that exists in Missouri state courts.
135
Implementation of an ODR provider
like Matterhorn will directly combat the accumulation of unresolved, open cases
that currently inhibit judicial efficiency.
136
Matterhorn will positively impact the
Missouri state court system because it will (1) increase judicial efficiency and ac-
cessibility, (2) prevent the issuance of warrants, and (3) directly reduce the back-
logged docket problem by quickly moving relatively minor cases through the court
system.
137
The successful implementation of Matterhorn in Michigan jurisdictions indi-
cates that this form of ODR is likely to be successful in Missouri state courts. The
state populations of Missouri and Michigan are similar.
138
The largest cities in each
state are also close in population size, which is a relevant factor considering the size
of the largest possible jurisdiction in each state.
139
Following the largest cities in
each state, the next most populous jurisdictions in each state are also of similar
sizes.
140
Matterhorn’s success in a state with a similar general demographic com-
position as Missouri likely indicates that implementing Matterhorn in Missouri will
yield similar benefits of judicial efficiency and expanding accessibility.
141
As in Michigan jurisdictions, using Matterhorn in Missouri will directly ad-
dress the court backlog issue by reducing the number of days that open cases remain
in the system
142
and by reducing the number of open warrants.
143
For example, in
134. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 106; J.J. Prescott, Improving Access to Justice in State Courts with
Platform Technology, 70 VAND. L. REV. 1993, 2023 (2017) (Matterhorn also “has the potential to im-
prove access to justice by dramatically reducing the costs of accessing courthouses and … the deci-
sionmakers who traditionally do their work at courthouses.”).
135. Byers, supra note 9.
136. Online Resolution Outcomes: Putting Court Access Technology to Work, supra note 118.
137. Schmitz, supra note 10.
138. Michigan Quick Facts, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/MI (last visited
Sept. 25, 2022) (2021 population estimation: 10,050,811); Missouri Quick Facts, U.S. CENSUS
BUREAU, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/MO (last visited Sept. 25, 2022) (2021 population estima-
tion: 6,168,187).
139. Michigan Cities by Population, CUBIT, https://www.michigan-demographics.com/cities_by_pop-
ulation (last visited Sep. 25, 2022) (Detroit population: 632,464); Missouri Cities by Population,
CUBIT, https://www.missouri-demographics.com/cities_by_population (last visited Sep. 25, 2022)
(Kansas City population: 508,294).
140. Michigan Cities by Population, supra note 141 (St. Louis population: 293,310); Missouri Cities
by Population, supra note 141 (Grand Rapids City population: 197,416).
141. See supra Part III(B)(ii).
142. Online Resolution Outcomes: Putting Court Access Technology to Work, supra note 120 (“Case
closure rates have been significantly reduced for courts using Matterhorn application – from an average
of 50 days before Matterhorn to just 14 days after implementation.”); Persky, supra note 76 at 18 (“The
program has increased the efficiency of Michigan courts. For example, a study of three courts and 17,000
cases revealed a 74 percent reduction in average days to case resolution with online dispute resolution.
A court in Washtenaw County using Matterhorn reduced case turnover from one or two months to just
over seven days.”).
143. Warrant Resolution, supra note 84.
12
Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 2023, Iss. 1 [], Art. 11
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2023/iss1/11
160 JOURNAL OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION [Vol. 2023
Missouri, 64.8% of misdemeanor cases were disposed of by guilty pleas in 2021.
144
Because a vast number of misdemeanor cases are resolved through guilty pleas,
Matterhorn could dispose of those cases amenable to ODR, thereby reducing the
number of cases moving through the court system. In terms of warrants, there were
238,339 pending warrants statewide in Missouri as of June 30, 2021.
145
Using Mat-
terhorn would help combat recurring issuances of failure-to-appear warrants,
thereby slowing the growth of, and possibly even mitigating, the warrant backlog.
146
Adoption of Matterhorn in Missouri state courts will not come without chal-
lenges.
147
First, not all cases are appropriate for ODR because they may be too
complex or otherwise inappropriate for online resolution.
148
Complexity and due
process concerns largely govern whether the type of case is eligible for ODR.
149
At
a broad level, jury trials and bench trials are not suitable for ODR. In another ex-
ample, the court’s determination of parental custody based on a child’s best interests
is complex and not appropriate for online resolution.
150
However, in this same child
custody case, ODR may be appropriate to assist parents in complying with their
parenting plans pursuant to the court’s determination of custody.
151
Safeguarding
users’ due process rights is of key importance when dealing with ODR and e-
courts.
152
Courts must “ensure that all parties have an adequate opportunity to par-
ticipate in the process and that parties can make voluntary and informed choices
surrounding the procedures and outcome.”
153
Thus, ODR should remain a volun-
tary, alternative avenue of pursuing case resolution in addition to traditional in-court
resolution. Additionally, a case may be inappropriate for ODR if participants are
uncomfortable using technology.
154
Some individuals may perceive ODR as im-
personal or believe that it enables parties to avoid emotional, important conversa-
tions.
155
A second, slippery-slope argument is that increasing judicial efficiency and ac-
cessibility through digitizing resolution of eligible cases may completely eliminate
access to in-person processes for those eligible cases.
156
One concern is that wide-
spread digitization is problematic because it threatens access to traditional means
of case resolution.
157
However, ODR is adopted to supplement, rather than to re-
place, traditional in-person court proceedings. Critics are particularly concerned
about individuals who cannot navigate technology and who do not have access to
144. Table 24 (illustration), in MO. JUD. REP. SUPPLEMENT, MO. CTS. (2021)(64.8% of misdemeanor
cases were disposed by guilty pleas), https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185481.
145. MO. JUD. REP. SUPPLEMENT, MO. CTS. (2021) at 232–33, https://www.courts.mo.gov
/file.jsp?id=185481.
146. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 161.
147. See Schmitz, supra note 10. See supra Part IV.
148. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 155–56. Some examples of types of cases that are appropriate for ODR
are those cases that Matterhorn offers its services, id. E.g., warrant prevention and resolution, online
pleas, traffic citations, parking citations, minor civil infractions, and minor misdemeanors, id.
149. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 155–56. See supra Part IV(A).
150. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 155.
151. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 155.
152. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 141.
153. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 142.
154. Colin Rule, Technology and the Future of Dispute Resolution, DISP. RESOL. MAG., Winter 2015,
at 7.
155. Id.
156. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 156.
157. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 156.
13
Wormington: Why Missouri State Courts Should Implement an Online Dispute Reso
Published by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository,
No. 1] Missouri Courts Should Implement Online Dispute Resolution 161
technology.
158
Again, however, this argument is refuted by the fact that ODR is a
voluntary process, and individuals can elect to engage in traditional in-person court
proceedings if desired.
159
Despite the challenges to adopting Matterhorn in Missouri state courts, the
long-term benefits of increased judicial efficiency and accessibility far outweigh
the challenges after examining the trajectory of the Missouri state court system.
Furthermore, adoption of ODR in Missouri will prevent the issuance of warrants
and directly reduce the court backlog. Missouri courts may look to ODR’s success
in Michigan jurisdictions as a starting point for ODR in Missouri.
V. CONCLUSION
Adopting an ODR program like Matterhorn in Missouri state courts will di-
rectly address the current accumulation of unresolved, open cases and persistent
issuances of warrants, both of which currently inhibit judicial efficiency.
160
The
success of Matterhorn in Michigan courts is a positive indication that Matterhorn
will produce analogous benefits in Missouri courts.
161
The COVID pandemic and
resulting court shutdowns gravely exacerbated the court docket backlog problem
that currently exists in Missouri.
162
It is imperative that Missouri courts consider
an ODR program able to resolve matters such as traffic tickets, warrants and pleas,
and misdemeanors. The sweeping benefits of ODR, including facilitating judicial
efficiency and accessibility to justice, far outweigh the potential challenges in its
adoption in Missouri courts.
158. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 156–57.
159. Schmitz, supra note 10, at 158.
160. Online Resolution Outcomes, supra note 118.
161. See supra Part III(B)(ii).
162. Byers, supra note 9.
14
Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 2023, Iss. 1 [], Art. 11
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2023/iss1/11
