The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts is looking for a contractor to study what it would take to implement a statewide e-filing system for Tennessee’s court system.

In a request for proposals issued Monday and closing early next month, the state said it is looking for someone to study the current state of court filing systems in Tennessee and to “provide comprehensive recommendations to move Tennessee courts to a unified e-filing system.”

The contractor will be tasked, within three months, with conducting walk-throughs and interviews with 10-15 court clerks at various levels of the state trial court system and with speaking to stakeholders including lawyers. The contractor is also asked to provide a list of the pros and cons of between two and four e-filing providers, plus a “roadmap” to setting a system up.

According to the RFP, the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2010 authorized electronic filing systems in Tennessee’s civil trial courts, with other state trial courts (criminal, juvenile and general sessions) authorized to implement e-filing in 2016. Adoption has been slow, however, and on a county-by-county basis. Shelby County circuit and chancery courts were the first in Tennessee to establish e-filing, in 2012.

“While significant progress has been made, the decision to move to e-filing is made at the county level — court by court,” the RFP notes. “Currently there are 11 courts in Tennessee that are utilizing e-filing systems and 20 additional courts that have been approved for implementation of an e-filing system. There are over 300 courts in the state.

“An e-filing solution, as contemplated by the State of Tennessee, shall provide more services than simply providing a means for the transfer of a document to the courts electronically,” the RFP continues. “Uniform statewide e-filing potentially provides the foundation for accurate and reliable information gathering and dissemination. In a mature statewide e-filing environment, data can be reported and analyzed in ways that informs quality policy decision-making for the state.”

The Administrative Office of the Courts did not respond to a request for comment.