Quick Facts
A: Responsibility is shared between the vendor that built the system and the state entities that approved, configured, and deployed it without adequate safeguards.
A: Yes. Vendors are contractually obligated to meet security, confidentiality, and performance standards, especially for systems handling sensitive court records.
A: Court systems handle coercive state power. Weak oversight allows design flaws to become systemic harms affecting due process and public safety.
Did you miss Part 1 of our MiFile Coverage?
Read it here.
When court technology fails, the consequences are not abstract. They show up as exposed records, procedural abuse, and decisions made on unreliable information.
MiFile did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the result of procurement decisions, vendor representations, and state oversight choices. If the system is unsafe, the question is not just what is broken, but who signed off.
This audit looks at how vendor accountability and state governance intersect, and where both appear to have fallen short.
1. Court Technology Is Not Ordinary State IT
Most state software manages benefits, licensing, or records. Court technology does something different. It mediates disputes, triggers enforcement, and creates legally binding consequences.
When a vendor builds a system for courts, it is not just delivering software. It is shaping how justice functions day to day. That requires higher standards for security, identity assurance, and abuse prevention than ordinary government platforms.
Treating MiFile as a document workflow tool instead of a safety critical justice system set the stage for everything that followed.
2. Vendor Representations Versus System Reality
Court technology vendors routinely market their platforms as secure, compliant, and designed for judicial environments. Those assurances form the basis of procurement approval and statewide rollout.
Yet MiFile currently operates without:
- meaningful identity verification for many users
- multi factor authentication
- robust role based access controls for vulnerable case types
- automated safeguards for nonpublic records
- built in abuse detection or reporting mechanisms
A system does not need to be hacked to be unsafe. If its normal operation enables foreseeable harm, that gap matters just as much.
3. Oversight Does Not End at Contract Signing
One of the most persistent myths in government technology is that accountability transfers entirely to the vendor once a system is deployed.
…That is not how court governance works.
State administrators and court leadership retain responsibility for:
- configuration decisions
- feature enablement or disablement
- statewide standards for safety and access
- monitoring whether the system performs as represented
The presence of features like unrestricted connections and broad search functionality reflects administrative choices, not just vendor defaults.
Oversight is an ongoing duty, not a one time approval.
4. Configuration Is Policy
MiFile’s risks are not hidden. They are visible in how the system behaves every day. When a system:
- allows contact between adverse parties
- reveals the existence of nonpublic proceedings
- grants procedural access before verifying standing
Those outcomes are not accidents. They are policy choices expressed through configuration. In court technology, configuration determines whether rules are enforced or merely aspirational.
5. Silence Is Not Neutral
When vulnerabilities are identified and left unaddressed, silence becomes a decision. Courts rely on the integrity of their systems. Litigants rely on courts for protection. Vendors rely on continued contracts and trust.
Failure to act when risks are known exposes everyone to escalating harm and potential liability. More importantly, it erodes public confidence in the justice system itself.
What Accountability Looks Like
Accountability does not require blame theatrics. It requires transparency and correction. At minimum, meaningful oversight would include:
- an independent security and governance audit
- public clarification of how nonpublic records are protected
- identity assurance standards appropriate for court filings
- role based restrictions for high risk case types
- clear abuse reporting and intervention pathways
Court technology should not rely on good faith alone. It must be designed for misuse, because misuse is inevitable.
Why This Matters
MiFile is now part of Michigan’s judicial infrastructure, spanning 125 courts across the state. Its weaknesses affect not just individual cases, but the credibility of court processes statewide.
Vendor accountability and state oversight are not bureaucratic concerns. They are the mechanisms by which courts protect fairness, safety, and due process in a digital age.
If the system remains unchanged, the risks will not stay theoretical. They will compound quietly, case by case, until trust breaks.
Come back tomorrow for the third and final installment on the MiFile Series.
