Court Technology Bulletin

Best Court Websites?

2012-02-29T08:45:00.001-05:00

How about it readers.

What are your nominations for the best court websites?

Please share in the comments section below.

Going Green with E-filing

2012-02-23T10:53:00.000-05:00

This article was originally published in the Winter, 2008 edition of the Texas Paralegal Journal and is posted here with their permission. It provides additional arguments for savings via E-filing as discussed in our earlier post: Calculating an E-Court Return on Investment (ROI)

Submissions for Adaptive Case Management Award Announced

2012-02-19T18:57:00.000-05:00

A call for nominations for the Adaptive Case Management Global Excellence Awards 2012 has been released. The deadline for submitting a 250 word abstract, which answers the following three questions, is February 28, 2012.

Calculating an E-Court Return on Investment (ROI)

2012-02-16T10:50:00.001-05:00

By James E. McMillan, NCSC; Carole D. Pettijohn, Ph.D., Director of Technology Services for R.B. "Chips" Shore, Manatee County Clerk of Court; Jennifer K. Berg, Esq., Sustainable Practice Leader, Northgate Environmental Management.

As it is legislative budget season for the USA state courts, it is a good time to look at the excellent work that Manatee County, Florida has done in calculating the return on investment of converting from a physical paper-based to an electronic-based organization. In addition, this article will also discuss the environmental cost savings benefits of going “E”.

Glass World

2012-02-14T16:44:00.000-05:00

Today all of us techies here at the NCSC were marveling at this video posted by Corning Glass titled "A Day Made of Glass" that shows various scenarios how glass displays are used now (photovoltaic and handheld display glass) and will be used in the future.

Smartphone Forms

2012-02-10T14:30:00.000-05:00

Example from doFORMS

The recent Super Bowl television commercial by Samsung for their new smartphone that showed a pen interface was derided by the Apple acolytes (probably because it made fun of them).

Attorney Technology Motivations?

2012-02-03T09:41:00.000-05:00

I don't know if it is just me or if others have noticed this but when dealing with some attorneys, particularly on the subject of E-filing there is often very strange push-back...as in, why would I want E-filing, online access, etc.?

The "3 Geeks and a Law Blog" (thanks Rob) has posted a very interesting article titled "Staying Relevant - Part 4: Technology and the Bottom-line".

They attribute some attorney resistance to technological change as "Cost-plus thinking" explaining:

"In a cost-plus world, firms react by draining the company of capital every December 31st. This mind-set does not view technology as an investment, but instead as a necessary expense. Worse yet, technology negatively impacts the number of hours and respective revenue generated by them. So why would a firm invest in it?"

The article continues with some excellent examples and counter-arguments to this worldview. But I would also suggest that this "argument" should both inform and temper the court's response to criticisms of their technology initiatives.

Federal Judicial Center Reports on Juror Social Media Issues

2012-01-26T10:11:00.002-05:00

NetworkWorld Blogger/Attorney, Michael Cooney posted an article on January 25, 2012 about the release of a US Federal Judicial Center report titled "Juror's Use of Social Media During Trials and Deliberations" (PDF).

This and That in Court Tech - January, 2012

2012-01-20T16:48:00.002-05:00

During the past month we have found quite a few interesting bits of information that we would like to share with our readers below.

Federal Bankruptcy Courts Provide Online Chat Help

2012-01-18T10:26:00.002-05:00

I have often told acquaintances that one goal of court automation is to allow court staff to be able to have enough time to answer the telephone. But now the courts have another option. The December, 2011 edition of the US Federal Court newsletter, The Third Branch has an article on Bankruptcy courts describing their implementation of online chat titled "Chat Live Now!"

Data Visualization

2012-01-11T14:00:00.001-05:00

Graphic from Wikipedia.org

An area of automation that the courts have generally ignored has been data visualization. While my colleague, Dr. Ingo Keilitz has worked for many years on digital dashboard concepts, there is a lot that can be done.

One excellent example was posted by the authors at Computational Legal Studies that presents "The Development of Structure in the Citation Network of the United States Supreme Court". This two minute online video of a growing "network diagram" representing the early relationship of cases is fascinating.

Maricopa County ICJIS Director Job Announcement

2012-01-06T08:43:00.000-05:00

We received the following message yesterday to pass along to our community:

Maricopa County (located in Phoenix, AZ) has an outstandingcareer opportunity for ICJIS (Integrated Criminal Justice Information System) Director. The successful candidatewill establish and oversee a project management agency to coordinate theplanning, development, implementation and maintenance of and ICJIS system forMaricopa County. Salary range: $101,296 - $157,019/Yr.

Job Posting/Online Application - http://agency.governmentjobs.com/maricopa/default.cfm?action=viewJob&jobID=400409

Benefits Overview - http://www.maricopa.gov/benefits/pdf/benefitsoverview.pdf

Mobile Legal Services

2012-01-06T08:39:00.000-05:00

Our good friends at Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute (via Rob Richards) posted a very interesting article on December 22, 2011 regarding the potential for the use of mobile telephone messaging/SMS for legal services. The author, Sean Martin McDonald (founder of frontlinesms.com), argues that the ubiquity of mobile telephones provides great potential for many legal services including legal client intake and referral, client and case management. And I would add training and document verification as other possibilities.

Bridging "the last mile" between the clients and legal services (including courts) are important. The author concludes the article with the following:

"I don’t think any of this will square me with my property-law professor. I’m not sure I’ll ever fix property law. But I do think that by reaching out to new populations using the technologies in their pockets, we can make a difference in the way people interact with the law. And even if that’s just a little bit, even if it just enables one percent more people to protect their homes, start a business, or pursue a better life, isn’t that worth it?"

Hear, hear!

Hey US Postal Service - The Courts Need This!

2012-01-03T13:48:00.001-05:00

We're all back at work at the NCSC and want to first wish everyone a good and productive 2012.

Over the break we heard of several services offered by the Postal Service in Switzerland that would be extremely useful to the US Courts.

The first service is called IncaMail (PDF document link) that provides secure encrypted e-mail. An interesting aspect is that "during the initial (first time) registration, both the e-mail address and the physical address of the user are verified by sending an activation code."

The Twelve Days of Court Tech

2011-12-20T17:04:00.000-05:00

With attribution to the original "Twelve Days of Christmas" and song; and thanks to my good friend Ken Lobenstein who authored this, the CTB presents: "The Twelve Days of Court Tech" for the holiday season.

The Evolving World of Case Management: Taming the Unpredictable

2011-12-16T13:48:00.001-05:00

Case management systems are not only for courts. The concepts are being used in many industries including insurance, health care, and even airport management systems.

US Federal Courts Internet Education/Training Offered

2011-12-12T08:00:00.000-05:00

The November, 2011 edition of The Third Branch federal courts newsletter contains articles on three new internet services.

The first article announces that the judiciary has created "a free-of-charge website the offers training for the federal Judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service."

The article continues: "The site, which launched in mid-September, features data from real cases in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York filed over a six-month period in 2007. The training site can be accessed via “What’s New With PACER” on the PACER website home page, www.pacer.gov."

A second article "Contemporary Issues Teach Teens about Federal Court System" describes an eduction website that"is offering several new courtroom simulations for use by high school teachers and federal courts that address contemporary issues and teen-related situations. They also teach students about the importance of jury deliberations and the relevance of the federal court system to their lives.

Two recently added simulations deal with Miranda warnings and counter-protests at funerals. Others deal with the legal conflicts arising from social media, texting while driving, teen house parties, and student protests. The simulations are available, with videos, podcasts, and interactive tools on-line at www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources.aspx that are ready for immediate classroom and courtroom use."

And last, there is a quick note regarding an online series of podcasts on "landmark" cases. The note states that "(e)ach episode explores a different landmark case as a law professor discusses the case’s background, key arguments, and the decision.

New episodes will be available each month at uscourts.gov/landmarks."

PDF Isn't Permanent.

2011-12-07T11:38:00.001-05:00

Recently I received an E-mail solicitation for a product called PDF Security Removal. As many of you know, there are settings that work with Adobe Reader that supposedly keep a PDF document from being printed or saved. So one more "advantage" of PDF electronic documents to serve as the permenant case file record is now obsolete.

The Electronic Judicial Bench

2011-12-01T16:43:00.001-05:00

Hon. Chief Judge Lee E. Hayworth

In an earlier CTB article I wrote about the need for E-filing systems to focus upon the needs of the judiciary in the transition from a paper to electronic environment. But as usually happens, a court has already made this occur.

Starting in 2009, the judges of the 12th Judicial Circuit of Florida working in conjunction with the Clerk of Court in Manatee County created a system "designed for judges, by judges".

Lots of IJIS Institute Announcements

2011-11-28T10:27:00.001-05:00

Many announcements from the IJIS Institute:
Announcement 1:

NEW Information Sharing LinkedIN Group
Please join the IJIS Institute’s new LinkedIN Group: Justice & Public Safety Information Sharing. The Group is a technology forum for practitioners and industry from the state, local, and tribal justice and public safety communities. The forum encourages organizations and individuals to share information about cross-agency, cross-jurisdictional, and cross-sector information sharing. Participants will discuss and share information on technology and standards to facilitate and assist one another to achieve information sharing. In just three weeks, 376 of your industry colleagues from across the country have joined the information sharing discussion.

There's an App for That Court

2011-11-22T15:00:00.001-05:00

1st Judicial District of
PA Android QR code

Courts are now making their information "smart phone" accessible.

First, from The Pennsylvania Record legal journal (www.pennrecord.com) in an article from October 14, 2011:

"Are you an attorney looking for easier access to upcoming civil trial dates? How about simply a member of the general public looking to learn more about the judicial system in the City of Philadelphia?

Iterative Implementation

2011-11-16T11:17:00.001-05:00

In recent years I have become less and less convinced that courts have the ability to foresee all of the process/workflow, document, and data sharing BEFORE they install a new case or document management system. These new systems have substantially more capabilities and flexibility that is not available in first or second generation case management systems. The new system brings many more new capabilities and possibilities. The old thinking about how things should be done in general does not apply and the design/specification efforts are wasted.

Therefore in recent years I have often advocated an “iterative approach” that has a new system first installed in the court with base/default capabilities. THEN, after experiencing the new system environment, the court adjusts both the system workflows/presentation and their business processes (and ideally organizational structure) to take advantage of the new technical capabilities. Visually presented, these are the two outside arrows of the Court Technology Framework diagram in action.

The system is therefore chosen based on the tools and potential, and not on how closely it fits the existing or imagined situation. This in turn means that new court automation system installations are not a 6 month but rather a 12-24 effort. And budgets and staff resources must be provided to support the effort over that time.

Many of you know and have viewed the wonderful TED Conference presentations that are available online. One presentation on point is called “Build a tower, build a team” by Tom Wujec. I hope you enjoy it.

Signing Documents on Your iPad?

2011-11-09T17:08:00.000-05:00

As many of you know, Apple iPads are already widely adopted by the judicial community. One issue/desire that has arisen is the ability for judges to "sign" documents. But unfortunately the late Steve Jobs rejected the idea that a "pen interface" was needed as standard equipment in opposition to the Tablet systems previously released by Microsoft.

Maryland Chooses Statewide CMS & E-Filing Vendor

2011-11-04T11:40:00.000-04:00

In a press release on November 3, 2011, it was announced that the State of Maryland Judiciary has selected Tyler Technologies' "Odyssey® court management system as the single, integrated environment for managing and reporting court information".

According to the announcement:

"The contract between Tyler and the State of Maryland is valued at approximately $45 million, which includes software licensing fees, professional services and a multi-year maintenance agreement. The MDEC Project will use several Odyssey modules, including Case Manager, Enterprise Content Management, Financial Management and e-Filing.

Maryland’s search for a judicial technology partner was anchored by three strategic goals: 1) enhance public safety by more rapidly sharing high-quality data in support of better decision-making; 2) increase access to the courts by providing an easy-to-use system that’s available anywhere, anytime; and 3) support the fair and efficient administration of justice by using a system that improves overall court operations, including better scheduling, reduced delays and better-informed decisions."

Eight Rules of E-Filing: Conclusion

2011-10-28T09:36:00.000-04:00

The goal of this series was to expand the thinking about E-filing beyond the delivery of static civil case documents via a web server (the most common system). E-filing must support all case types and the transition from a paper records to an electronic records foundation.

In turn, electronic documents do not have to be restricted to the limitations of paper documents. Formats, organization, and data capture/extraction can all take advantage of the dynamic environment that electronic information allows. In other words, as I often teach in classes and seminars, better information can and will result in better decisions and in turn, justice. And while this goal will never be fully realized, E-filing and related technologies will move us closer.

Last, for your convenience, the entire series of articles have been compiled into a PDF document that can be downloaded. (see the "File" command in the upper right corner to download or make a copy)

Links to all of the articles in the series:

Introduction
Rule Number 1: All documents created by the court are stored in the electronic document management system (EDMS) are designated as “the official record”.
Rule Number 2: User authentication must be designed into the overall e-filing solution.
Rule Number 3: Design Backwards
Rule Number 4: Court document creation must be integrated with the CMS.
Rule Number 5: Efficiency. E-filing should facilitate more efficient court processes and decisions.
Rule Number 6: E-Filing Must Support the Self-Represented
Rule Number 7: E-Filing Should Support Government to Court Communications
Rule Number 8: E-filing and “Paper on Demand”

This and That - October, 2011

2011-10-20T16:31:00.002-04:00

CTC-2011

The conference was a great success again this year. For education session presentations and articles go to: http://www.ctc2011.org/Attendees/Program-at-a-glance.aspx and then click on the session name.

Registration Still Open for Privacy and Public Access Conference

Our partner, the Center for Legal and Court Technology has openings for the 8th Conference on Privacy and Public Access to Court Records to be held in Williamsburg, Virginia from November 3-4, 2011. For more see the conference website at: http://www.privacy.legaltechcenter.net/aspx/Conferences.aspx

Florida Senate: Make non-efilers in courts pay a 3.5% surcharge?

2011-10-17T14:16:00.001-04:00

Cross-posted at Gavel to Gavel blog

I mentioned last week that the Florida Senate was going to meet tomorrow (October 18) and that the agenda included an item entitled

Presentations on issues related to electronic filing of court documents

I came across a (possibly) related piece of legislation: SB 410 of 2012. The bill contains two provisions:

(1) A litigant who is required to electronically file a court or other legal document in a court of this state, in the Division of Administrative Hearings, or in the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims shall pay a surcharge in addition to any other cost incurred if the litigant files a paper document instead of electronically filing the document. The surcharge shall equal 3.5 percent of the cost of filing the document electronically.(2) This section does not apply to a litigant who is indigent as determined by s. 27.52, Florida Statutes.

The obvious question is "who is required to electronically file a court or other legal document"? SB 170 of 2011, signed into law in June, requires prosecutors and public defenders to e-file documents with the clerk of court and report back on March 1, 2012 on the implementation of the program to the legislature (click here for prior posts). A 2009 statute (SB 1718) required the clerks of court to implement an electronic filing process by March 1, 2010.Live coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee e-filing presentation can be found here.

Eight Rules of E-filing: Rule #8

2011-10-13T14:55:00.001-04:00

Rule Number 8: E-filing and “Paper on Demand”.

E-filing (and more specifically electronic documents) provide flexibility in the ability for judges and staff to consume content. A widely held view (see note 1 below) is that if the judge is better served by printing documents; they should be allowed to print the documents that are needed for the work at hand. But when done working with those documents they are recycled and/or shredded. They aren’t maintained as the official record.

CTC-2011 - What Did You See? (Updated -11/10/11)

2011-10-10T14:23:00.001-04:00

Last week's Court Technology Conference (the 12th since 1984) was a gathering of court technology professionals, enthusiasts, and the curious in Long Beach, California. Many of the conference presentations have already been made available at:

http://www.ctc2011.org/Attendees/Program-at-a-glance.aspx
(Click on the session title to open a window with links to the presentation(s) if available).

I for one very much enjoyed Korean Judge Hoshin Won's presentation on tablet and surface computing including a tour of their e-Courts Experience Center. A picture of a virtual courtroom concept demonstrating touch-screen and "tele-presence" technology in their e-Courts Experience Center is shown above.

A video of the e-Court Experience Hall and presentations are available at:

http://www.ctc2011.org/Attendees/CLCT-program.aspx

What did you see that you would like the CTB readers to know about? We invite you to share your experiences by posting a comment below.

CTC-2011 Daily Update

2011-10-03T13:56:00.002-04:00

For up-to-date information as to what is happening in Long Beach, California go to CTC Daily Update web page at: http://icmelearning.com/ctc/mailer/daily-update.html

Hope to say hi to many of you this week!

Eight Rules of E-Filing: Rule #7

2011-09-27T11:27:00.000-04:00

E-Filing Should Support Government to Court Communications

The vast majority of E-filing systems focus uponcivil case matters. While there are manyreasons I believe that besides vendor funding, this focus greatly reduces projectpolitical risk to the courts. Judges havemore discretion in managing civil cases and the parties can agree to worktogether to support new systems and procedures for everyone’s benefit. In fact, this is how court E-filing started in 1990 in theDelaware Chancery Court.

But criminal and other cases involving human services andother government departments and programs are a different animal for E-filing. In criminal cases the attorneys arecontinually looking for procedural mistakes and other errors in order dismisscases and free or reduce the penalties for their clients. In other words, the attorneys truly embracetheir adversarial role with court procedures as well as the opposing side. As a result, and along with funding challenges,there are only a handful of criminal case E-filing systems in the USA today.

Court Automation Funding Compilation Report

2011-09-23T15:51:00.000-04:00

Our NCSC Technology Department's excellent summer intern and future law school student, Ms. Emily Whitaker, scoured the Internet and legal research resources to compile a list of state court automation funding. We can report that the majority of state courts have implemented some type of automation support fee or fund. The results were compiled into a PDF spreadsheet format and are available at:

http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-Experts/Areas-of-expertise/Technology/2011-Technology-Survey-Results.aspx

US Federal Courts Train Judges Online

2011-09-12T08:00:00.001-04:00

The August, 2011 edition of the US Federal Court's newsletter, The Third Branch, contains a brief article on their "Chambers Online Automation Training (COAT)" system. The article states:

"The audio/video training modules fall into 13 general lesson areas. Few run longer than 10 minutes, many clock in at around 3 minutes. Each module is organized by job-related function and includes a demonstration and a guided simulation.

COAT began with a desire by the Judicial Conference Information Technology Committee to create better IT training for judges and chambers staff. It is part of the FJC/AO Judicial IT Training Initiative."

New Hampshire Issues E-Filing RFI

2011-09-09T09:12:00.000-04:00

The New Hampshire Judicial Branch has issued an RFI for E-filing and related services. A copy of the RFI can be obtained at: http://admin.state.nh.us/purchasing/specRFP.asp?rfpID=6892

Eight Rules of E-Filing: Rule #6

2011-09-08T10:48:00.001-04:00

E-Filing Must Support the Self-Represented

To date most court E-filing has focused on civil litigation for a number of reasons. First, a majority of non-small-claims civil litigation is serviced by attorneys. This well-educated user base is generally motivated to reduce their operational costs. And with the use of E-filing in the USA Federal Courts being widespread, they are becoming very familiar with the technology. But state courts in particular are increasingly experiencing a significant transition in case participants to more and more self-representation. A recent compilation by the Knowledge and Information Services staff here at the NCSC reported that 66% of all cases heard in Minnesota courts involved the self-represented with a high of 81% of family cases. And Connecticut reported a 101% increase in the number of civil cases involving self-represented from 2005 to 2010.

The Search for Quiet

2011-08-26T11:03:00.002-04:00

Courtroom proceedings are an often intense environment during which one strains to hear every nuance of spoken communication. And while there are many problems with courtroom acoustics, especially in large courtrooms, the tapping of keyboards can be disturbing.

In 2007 Judge Michael Marcus from the Circuit Court of Multnomah County Oregon shared his views on his quest for a quiet keyboard. That quest continues to this day. But as expected, there are two recent technology innovations that could be considered as a solution to this problem.

Eight Rules of E-Filing: Rule #5

2011-08-19T15:13:00.000-04:00

Efficiency. E-filing should facilitate more efficient court processes and decisions.

First, once E-filing is implemented courts should re-engineered their rules and processes to take advantage of the new capabilities. A good example is the court in Baltimore, Maryland that adjudicated thousands of asbestos matters. The judge worked with the attorneys to group the electronic submissions 10 at a time containing identical facts (same shipyard, timeframe, and injury) and in turn modified the review presentation screen so that he could more quickly review and approve the civil settlement for the filers.

Federal Court Self-Filer's Examined

2011-08-15T15:30:00.000-04:00

The July, 2011 edition of The Third Branch newsletter contains an important article summarizing a study on current services to self-represented and "Pro-se" filers offered by US federal courts. The article: IN-DEPTH: Leveling the Playing Field: Help for Self-Filers reports on both automated and direct self-help services offered. One side-bar in the article noted:

"...A disturbingly large number of litigants come to the Clinic with basic reading and comprehension problems; some cannot even read Court orders and the opposition's filings. Others can decipher the words in the documents but cannot comprehend even the simplest of Court orders."

The article also updates the Central District of Illinois project for Pro-Se E-Filing for Prisoners that was previously highlighted in the CTB.

This article is highly recommended.

Eight Rules of E-Filing: Rule #4

2011-08-10T08:00:00.030-04:00

Rule Number 4: Court document creation must be integrated with the CMS.

A great percentage of documents in a case file are produced by the court. Therefore it is imperative that a court e-filing system seamlessly interact with the court’s case management system (CMS) and word processing capabilities.

This and That in Court Technology - August 2011

2011-08-05T11:30:00.003-04:00

Oklahoma Funds CMS Via Increased Court Fees

The Tulsa World newspaper reports that an increase in court filing fees from $10 to $25 has resulted in approximately $32 million dollars used to fund their statewide court case management system.

Wolfram Releases Computable Document Format

In continuing work on "useful" electronic documents, the Wolfram company has released a new format called Computable Document Format that can be used to create interactive reports. Sounds perfect for project like Smart Sentencing.

New York State E-Courts Projects Noted

The New York Times newspaper recently highlighted work being done by the New York State Courts to transition to electronic records.

The Future of Court Reporters is Explored

In an article posted on the Law.com blog, "Are Court Reporters 'Medival Scribes' Headed for Extinction", issues regarding the technology and services are discussed.

ABA Survey finds e-Filing and e-Service on the Rise

Thanks to a note via Kendall Collins Smith of Lexis-Nexis (one of the sponsors) we learned of the release of a recent survey created by the American Bar Association on Litigation and Courtroom Technology including the use of e-filing.

Eight Rules of E-Filing: Rule #3

2011-07-26T14:29:00.000-04:00

Rule Number 3: Design Backwards

Information presentation should be designed around the work tasks that a judge or clerk performs. Malcolm Gladwell in his article, “The Social Life of Paper” explains:

“It is only if paper's usefulness is in the information written directly on it that it must be stored. If its usefulness lies in the promotion of ongoing creative thinking, then, once that thinking is finished, the paper becomes superfluous. The solution to our paper problem, they write, is not to use less paper but to keep less paper. Why bother filing at all? Everything we know about the workplace suggests that few if any knowledge workers ever refer to documents again once they have filed them away, which should come as no surprise, since paper is a lousy way to archive information. It's too hard to search and it takes up too much space. Besides, we all have the best filing system ever invented, right there on our desks -- the personal computer.”

8th Conference on Privacy and Public Access to Court Records

2011-07-19T08:00:00.003-04:00

The Center for Legal and Court Technology and the National Center for State Courts, with the assistance of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, have announced the eighth edition of the Privacy and Public Access to Court Records Conference to be held in Williamsburg, Virginia on November 3-4, 2011. Some topics from the agenda include an update on state policies, technology trends and issues panel, social media, issues relating to family law and privacy, international perspectives, and a special presentation on an experimental initiative with streaming video in a Massachusetts court.

CTC-2011 Educational Agenda Posted

2011-07-14T13:00:00.002-04:00

The educational session agenda for the CTC-2011 conference have been posted. There is more information coming but I can share a few highlights. First, CITOC has created an entire track of sessions for court CIO's that addresses the entire life-cycle of court IT management. Second, there are many sessions sharing innovations in the court automation and how courts have transitioned to new technology, and re-engineered processes and their organization to take advantage of the new electronic world. Third, there are many sessions looking toward the future including next generation technology standards, new information sharing approaches and the application of new technologies in the courtroom. And one can't forget that CTC has the largest court technology vendor show in the world with all the latest systems and ideas.

CTC-2011 will be held from October 4-6, 2011 at the Long Beach, California Convention Center.

Full descriptions of the sessions will be posted in the near future.

Eight Rules of E-Filing: Rule #2

2011-07-08T15:11:00.000-04:00

Rule Number 2: User authentication must be designed into the overall e-filing solution.

For too long court E-filing has been generally limited to civil case matters. This is perfectly understandable from a legal viewpoint since the parties and/or court can simply agree to its use. But today we should design E-filing systems to deal with all case types such as criminal and juvenile that has a decidedly greater need for user verification.

Eight Rules of E-Filing: Rule #1

2011-06-30T09:17:00.000-04:00

Rule Number 1: All documents created by the court are stored in the electronic document management system (EDMS) are designated as “the official record”.

Why this rule? Because many courts have and continue to maintain dual paper and electronic systems have reported that they have not benefited from their document management systems - simply because they are maintaining two systems. Needless to say, doubling the number of systems is not a recipe for efficiency. And while is takes time to transition from the paper file room to the electronic document system, the sooner that the conversion takes place, the better.

2011 NIEM National Training Event

2011-06-29T11:57:00.000-04:00

IT professionals from government and industry will gather in Philadelphia to learn more about the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM), sharing their implementation experiences, celebrating their accomplishments, demonstrating helpful development tools, providing domain updates, and discussing effective strategies for information sharing. Among the five concurrent tracks, keynote speakers, and special events, here are a few highlights to pique the interest of state and local court leaders:

• Oklahoma AOC Information Exchange: A Use Case for NIEM Enterprise Implementation
• National Association of State CIOs: State and Local Panel
• Human Services Collaborations: Information Exchange Across the Digital Divide
• LinkedIn’s Vice President of Strategic Alliances

Visit the NIEM 2011 Training Event website to view the entire NIEM NTE agenda, register, and reserve your accommodations at the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown.

Eight Rules of E-Filing (Introduction)

2011-06-24T16:00:00.010-04:00

As in any technology project, the “devil” is in implementation and acceptance of the new system by the judges and court staff. E-filing affects every part of the court operation since it transforms the filing system and the documents used to make court decisions.

Case Management Systems (CMS) have traditionally automated the registry/docket (historical event record), participants, and scheduling /task control and has left the document filing system for separate image document management programs. This has primarily been done because of cost and the lack of workflow and task control capabilities in traditional CMS.

But I believe that this is also a remnant of the courts traditional organizational division between the docket/registry/indexing function and the document filing system. Separate staff and separate processes are a common organizational structure in many clerk's offices.

Even today a great majority of courts still maintain physical case files. And workflow in manual file systems has meant physically moving the file folder from person to person and office to office. In many courts the file folder also serves as the case event registry. This function is addressed by a printed registry form grid on the folder cover the list of documents contained within. The advantage for this approach is that when one works on the contents of the folder, the data capture and presentation is literally in one’s hands.

Bestselling author, Malcolm Gladwell explains in his article “The Social Life of Paper” the attractiveness of this approach in a collaborative work environment like the court:

“Because paper is a physical embodiment of information, actions performed in relation to paper are, to a large extent, made visible to one's colleagues. Reviewers sitting around a desk could tell whether a colleague was turning toward or away from a report; whether she was flicking through it or setting it aside. Contrast this with watching someone across a desk looking at a document on a laptop. What are they looking at? Where in the document are they? Are they really reading their e-mail? Knowing these things is important because they help a group coordinate its discussions and reach a shared understanding of what is being discussed.”

But the same capability can be done with even more ease in an E-filing/Electronic Document Management system as will be discussed in later posts in this series.

E-filing, document, and case management functionality cannot be separated. Many courts have tried what is now termed an “e-delivery” systems. This is where the documents are electronically submitted only to transfer the work of printing, collating, and storing the paper into the physical file folder to the court staff. One can imagine the additional workload for court staff that negates the initial efficiencies of E-filing. These projects have been shuttered after a period of time because E-filing did not reduce but rather increased the clerk's staff workload.

Over the next several weeks we will offer eight rules of E-filing systems implementation. However, please note that there are many additional factors in any successful implementation as defined in classic project management structures including proper governance, budget, testing, and communication that cannot be ignored. So please keep that in mind as you read our "rules".

International Conference on Electronic Litigation 2011

2011-06-18T08:00:00.002-04:00

The Singapore Academy of Law are organising the “International Conference on Electronic Litigation 2011” in Singapore this August. The Organizing Committee has extended a very warm invitation to attend the Conference which will be held on 11 and 12 August 2011 at the Marina Mandarin Hotel, Singapore.

The Conference will feature two keynote speakers, Lord Justice Rupert Jackson of the Court of Appeal in the UK and Judge of Appeal Justice V K Rajah of the Supreme Court of Singapore. The key objective of the Conference is to gather legal luminaries from all over the world to discuss and confer on international developments in electronic litigation. These include electronic discovery, electronic hearings, the preservation of electronic evidence and the duty on litigants and lawyers to preserve such evidence. Other topics in this rapidly evolving area of the law include a discussion on recent developments in computer forensics and common issues faced by computer forensic experts. Judges, legal practitioners, in-house counsel and academics from all over the world will be invited to attend the Conference. Speakers and panelists will be drawn from the Judiciary, the legal industry and academia to represent a full range of views.

New Hampshire Seeks E-Courts Staff

2011-06-16T10:54:00.000-04:00

The New Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts have posted two job announcements.

The first announcement (pdf) is for a two year appointment as the E-Courts Project Manager.

And the second job posting (pdf) is a one year appointment for an E-Courts Statutes/Rules Analyst.

For additional information, a summary of the courts 2010-2012 Information Technology Plan (pdf) can be viewed/downloaded by clicking here.

NIEM Children, Youth, and Family Services Domain Draft Released

2011-06-15T14:10:00.003-04:00

The governance team of the National Information Exchange Model's Children, Youth, and Family Services Domain (NIEM CYFS) invites you to review and critique its new schema. We appreciate your feedback and ask that you send your comments to dgraski@ncsc.org by July 15, 2011.

The beta version of CYFS 2.1.1 can be viewed in several formats. For a comprehensive list of all of the elements (properties), types, and code lists (enumerations), this html view works best: http://www.waterholesoftware.com/downloads/cyfs211/cyfs211.html. Several other tools found at http://cyfsdomain.org enable keyword searches and graphical views (e.g., NIEM Wayfarer).

The purpose of the CYFS domain is to support timely, complete, accurate, and efficient information sharing among the child support, child welfare, juvenile justice, family court, and related partners that can help improve outcomes for children and youth whose circumstances make them particularly vulnerable. The inaugural content for the domain – part of NIEM 2.1’s release in September 2009 – was extracted from extension schema specifying national reference models for six data exchanges between courts and child-support enforcement agencies, and between courts and child welfare agencies. The CYFS Domain release planned for August 2011 will integrate the Juvenile Justice XML data model developed by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Juvenile Information Sharing Initiative. In addition, the August 2011 domain update will include data elements from three notification exchanges (court event, representation, and placement change).

The National Judicial-Child Support Task Force, sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), developed two information exchange models using NIEM’s predecessor, the Global Justice XML Data Model. The Task Force included representatives from state and tribal CSE agencies and courts, staff from OCSE’s regional and central offices, and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). The Initial Request for Remedy IEPD describes the agency’s case-initiation message to the court; the Child Support Order IEPD describes the court’s findings and judgment concerning the financial responsibilities of a child’s non-custodial parent.

The Court/Child Welfare National Exchange Template (NET) Project developed several national reference models to describe the exchange of information between a state or county child welfare agency and a court with jurisdiction over child abuse, neglect, and dependency cases. The NET team included representatives from HHS ACF Children’s Bureau’s Division of State Systems, two of the Children’s Bureau’s National Resource Centers (Child Welfare Data & Technology, and Legal & Judicial Issues), representatives from state and local child welfare agencies and courts, and NCSC.

OJJDP’s National Juvenile Information Sharing Initiative (NJIS) worked with one of its JIS pilot sites to identify and develop several high-priority data exchange specifications, including education messages between juvenile probation, law enforcement, and a public school district. In a collaborative effort, OJJDP’s NJIS worked with the University of Massachusetts Medical School to develop the data exchange for the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-2). This data exchange has been successfully implemented at one of the NJIS’s pilot sites. Additional data exchanges developed include information regarding a serious, habitual offender direct intervention (SHODI), record of law enforcement’s Field Contact with a juvenile, and Human Service placement and services exchanges.

Notes on Court Document Redaction

2011-06-13T08:00:00.009-04:00

Our friends at Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy (CITP) have posted a very interesting article "Studying the Frequency of Redaction Failures in PACER". As most of you know, PACER is the US Federal Courts program for access to court case management and case documents that have been either E-filed or scanned. CITP author Timothy B. Lee explains the differences in PDF and other formats that are used in electronic document systems and the software they developed to study the problem (which they make available). The article ends with a discussion on technical approaches that could be used to address the redaction issue.

In addition, there are other technical resources available. For example, if you use Adobe Acrobat Pro one might want to check out a couple of web pages and videos on subject here and here.

Today courts are often placing the burden of redaction upon the litigants. The Wyoming courts have earlier this year released new rules on document redaction that can be viewed here.

And other redaction rules have been posted by the following courts:

Note - the accompanying graphic was adapted from the publically available picture of a redacted page from the ACLU vs. Ashcroft lawsuit.

NY's top administrative judge calls for legislation mandating e-filing

2011-06-08T12:05:00.004-04:00

Last week I noted the huge amount of legislative interest and activity on e-filing. At almost the same time, NY's Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau was delivering her report urging legislation be adopted to mandate the use of e-filing in the state's courts. The report, eFiling in the New York State Courts: Report of the Chief Administrative Judge to the Governor, the Chief Judge, and the State Legislature, was created in fulfillment of a legislative request for information on the state's existing system and its status. The report includes the following ringing endorsement of e-filing.

Over [the last] twelve years, e-filing has shown itself to be reliable, efficient, convenient, and secure. It allows court papers to be filed and served, virtually instantaneously, at any time and from anywhere, without the need to go to the courthouse. It allows online access to case files by counsel anywhere at any time. It also sharply reduces record storage, retrieval and reproduction costs, completely eliminates the burden and expense of serving papers on opposing parties, and minimizes the need to travel to the courthouse. The result is significant cost savings for litigants, attorneys, the courts, and County Clerks. Indeed, it is estimated that universal mandatory e-filing would reduce the cost of litigation by hundreds of millions of dollars a year, with much of this savings inuring to the businesses and the state and local governments that so often litigate in our courts. With the potential to eliminate the filing and service of hundreds of millions of pieces of paper each year, e-filing is also the key to a greener, more environmentally responsible justice system.

Roundup of e-filing legislation

2011-06-03T09:17:00.005-04:00

As courts move to more expansive use of electronic filing, more than technical issues have come up. Two in particular (financing and dated statutory language) require the active participation and permission of legislatures for implementation. This year saw several new laws and some bills still currently active that would go a long way to help, or in the case of New Mexico harm, e-filing and the courts. Among the bills:

Law
South Dakota HB 1038 Requires clerk of Supreme Court collect certain fees for the electronic transmission of court records. Signed into law by Governor 2/17/11.
Virginia SB 1369 Provides that clerks may charge a fee of $25 for civil or criminal proceedings filed electronically and an additional $10 fee for subsequent filings in such proceedings. Requires fee go to clerk's local fund to cover operational expenses of the electronic filing system. Clarifies that clerks may provide official certificates and certified copies of records that contain personal identifying information electronically upon request of a party or attorney. Makes various changes to clerks' duties regarding electronic filing. Signed into law by Governor 3/26/11.
On Governor’s desk awaiting action
Florida SB 170 Requires each state attorney and public defender to electronically file court documents with the clerk of the court and receive court documents from the clerk of the court. Requires the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the Florida Public Defender Association report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by a specified date on the progress made to use the Florida Courts E-Portal system or the clerks' offices portals to electronically file and receive court documents, etc. Approved by full House 5/4/11. To Governor for approval.

For a list of other state activity, check out Issue 5:21 of Gavel to Gavel.

Projects and Notes - June, 2011

2011-06-02T14:27:00.000-04:00

We have received many notes on court technology projects, thanks to our friends, that we want to pass along. So here goes.

LegalXML Electronic Court Filing (ECF) Issues Portable Media Draft

The OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing TC members have produced a Committee Specification Draft (CSD) and submitted it for 30-day public review for the ECF 4.0 Portable Media Service Interaction Profile. The profile may be used to store ECF 4.0 message transmissions to portable media in the absence of an active network between the sending and receiving MDEs. For more click here.

iPad/iPhone Deposition Support (thanks Carlene)

The iPhone J. D. blog shares a step-by-step guide for using that device to recreate a scene in/for a deposition.

iPads as Kiosks (thanks Jim D)

Apple stores are using iPads as very attractive kiosk devices.

Montgomery County Ohio E-Filing Training and Support (thanks Anne)

A very nice Q & A page was created by the Montgomery County (Dayton) Ohio E-filing project following their webinar training. They have also posted their PowerPoint presentations and other very useful information from their project.

"Judges Walk Tightrope With Online Presence" (thanks EZ)

The Recorder legal newspaper in California posted an article on issues facing judges using social media.

Oregon Courts Choose CMS (Press release)

DALLAS – June 2, 2011 – Tyler Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: TYL) today announced that the State of Oregon has selected Tyler’s Odyssey® Court Management System for statewide implementation supporting all state trial courts. Odyssey supports Oregon’s eCourt goal of using technology to streamline court processes, reduce costs from handling and storing paper files, provide around-the-clock access to court information, and provide better information for judicial decision-making. Please click here for the full press release.

Court Videoconferencing

News articles from Tennessee and Georgia.

Federal Courts Work on their Archives

2011-05-26T15:00:00.003-04:00

Another excellent article in the US Federal Courts newsletter. The Third Branch from their May, 2011 edition shares news of recent work being done by the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management Records Subcommittee.

The article, Making Room-Saving History, summarizes work being done by the Federal Courts with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to reduce the massive accumulation of records that "cost the Judiciary over $6.2 million last year".

The article notes:

""Records had accumulated for decades and had become an unmanageable mass," said Judge Steven Merryday (M.D. Fla.), then chair of the Records Subcommittee, part of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM). "With the potential of rising storage costs, we were facing catastrophic budget consequences." Merryday's subcommittee began by looking for ways to preserve what needed to be kept and what could be disposed. They sought the advice of the head of the National Archives and court representatives. The subcommittee went over, code by code, what would be found in a file, and agreed on what should be preserved. Then they made their recommendations to the full CACM Committee and then to the Judicial Conference."

The article further notes:

This is the first time in more than 30 years that NARA has been able to dispose of any federal court case records. They've begun with paper civil case files dating back to 1970. But before they dispose of any files, courts have the ability to designate "non-trial temporary case" files between 1970 and 1995 as historic. These files will be retained and stored. All cases filed at any time that proceeded to trial, and all cases filed before 1970 are automatically designated permanent and will not be destroyed. The remaining cases will be indexed and become easier to access.

What is considered historically significant? The CACM Committee, working with NARA, federal judges, historians, and academics, proposes that certain case records be designated permanent. Cases of historic significance would involve particular issues such as state reapportionment cases, civil rights voting cases, treason, national security, family farm and historic bankruptcy cases, and death penalty habeas corpus cases. Judges and clerks of court also are asked to designate cases that:

Involved a lawyer, litigant, or witness of historical interest or importance;
Involved an issue of historical interest;
Involved a matter of national interest separate from the issues in the litigation; or
Received substantial media attention at the time.

Several state courts have done similar work including promenently the New York State Judiciary Records Management program. For a list of their policies click here.

Wireless Device Guidelines for Federal Courts

2011-05-23T10:00:00.006-04:00

The April, 2011 edition of the Federal Courts Third Branch newsletter contains a timely article: Wireless Device Access Guidelines Strike Balance. The article begins:

“The American public loves the convenience of their wireless communication devices—PDAs and laptops, smart phones and earpiece devices, among others. It’s estimated there are 285 million cell phone users in the United States.

However, the same devices that provide convenience in communications may raise security concerns in federal courts and possibly disrupt proceedings. Courts have responded with a variety of access policies.

To help strike the right balance between security concerns and convenience, the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, in consultation with the Information Technology Committee and the Judicial Security Committee, has issued revised guidance for courts to consider that updates how new technologies could be used and what this may mean for courts.”

Documents as a Two Way Street

2011-05-20T16:00:00.001-04:00

Electronic document software should be able to do more to help us do our work in the courts. One problem has been the current inability for the software that has been implemented to be able to work together. For example, when a judge creates an order, they most often create the document in a word processing program, save it; possibly convert it to PDF; then in turn it is ideally e-filed or less ideally, scanned or printed. Then the data is manually entered into the case management system (CMS). No wonder many court users have a dim view of automation “productivity” when put through these multiple and often confusing steps? But it doesn't have to be that way.

All major word processing and forms software has the ability to merge data from a database into a document when created. Many CMS have been doing this since the early 1980’s via mail merge functionality. But most don’t realize that one can identify data entry fields (see this Microsoft Word example article) so that the data can be “read” for data entry by the database. Therefore the new scenario could be: first, the judge or clerk would select the document to be created; the database in turn would be called upon to complete/merge the known data into the document. When complete, the data added by the user would in turn be read by the system and automatically entered into the CMS database. This helps the judge/clerk accomplish their task and, avoids the need for subsequent data entry and other steps. This is the two way street. But just as important, the document itself should be automatically stored or attached as part of the CMS database so that it is an integral part of the court record.

In other words, this approach minimizes multiple steps as well as complexity. And since the major technology vendors have provided the ability to do full text search of documents stored in their databases, the court users can retrieve document data both through the case number but also using “Google” type searches. For discussion of Microsoft database search capabilities click here and here and for Oracle click here.

Bottom line: the technology vendors have been working hard over the past decade to make things work together… it is up to court technology developers to use that capability to benefit the daily work of the judges and court staff.

E-Filing / E-Reader Notes

2011-05-14T08:33:00.005-04:00

Western District of Virginia Federal Court

Courts are starting to express addition control over the form and format of E-filed documents. For example, via Virginia Lawyers Weekly we learn that the Western District of Virginia District Court has requested that large scanned PDF attachments be handled separately and submitted in separate 10 MB file attachments. The complete court rule can be read here.

Texas Appellate Courts¹

The Supreme Court of Texas has made E-filing a promenant place on their website. In addition to the link to their rules, there is a link to a paper by attorney Don Cruse and Clerk of Court Blake A. Hawthorne's paper: Appellate Briefs of the Future that contains excellent guidance on preparing "e-briefs". Attorney Cruse' further provides valuable information via his SCOTXBlog including a call for comments on how e-briefs are really being used.

US Supreme Court

And last, in an article we missed late last year we learn that two US Supreme Court justices have been using e-readers, the iPad and Kindle.

Notes:
(1) Thanks to Kendall Collins Smith and her OneLegal Blog for this lead

Trust and E-Filing

2011-05-07T07:02:00.000-04:00

There is a significant differentiation between e-filing systems design to address inherent issues between trusted and un-trusted E-filers. Let me explain:

An article by former Public Broadcasting System “pen-named” columnist, Robert X. Cringley. "The T Word" discussed the concept of trust. He wrote:

“(T)rust is … based on one of two methodologies — empiricism or transparency” The essence of empirical trust in this instance is “I trust because I don’t need to trust because I am (or soon will be in the rube scenario) immune to harm.” This immunity comes from a mathematical proof, whether that proof is provided by a strongly encrypted password on a computer file or by the hedging of counter-parties in some complex financial derivatives play. Empirical trust is a zero-sum game.”

“Trust through transparency is a completely different creature based on the novel idea that people say what they mean, do what they say they will, and make things that work because you can see how they work inside.”

E-filing systems that are based using Electronic Filing Service Providers (EFSP - see note 1 below) are essentially empirical trust systems. The courts have “hedged” their risk by allowing the EFSP to validate the filer and handle payments. In turn if the EFSP charges their fees via credit card that later default, well they have hedged that risk/trust via the credit card service company who absorb the loss (as would the courts if charged the credit card directly).

Also an EFSP could be another government agency that the court implicitly trusts and vouches for their user community. A prosecutor, social service agency, or law enforcement department would maintain their authorized user access that in turn would provide identification verification for e-filing.

Finally the court themselves could develop their own “circle of trust”(2) as have the US Federal Courts who validate their e-filing users via a sign-up and training procedure. For example, the US Bankruptcy Court in San Diego explains on their web page that “to become a CM/ECF Registered User that one must register and complete the assigned training”

But what about E-filers, such as the self-represented, who do not use an Electronic Filing Service Provider to vouch for them? They will have to be initially viewed as un-trusted E-filers. There is a very old but true saying that came from a New Yorker magazine cartoon “On the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog”. The fact of anonymity has been a boon and curse to the users of the Internet. In our case it is a curse because we must have reasonable assurance that the person submitting the electronic is in fact that person (or authorized person). The risk of “spam” filings and other type of network attacks is real. Thus since the goal is to make e-filing as accessible and convenient to use for as many persons as possible, these issues and limitations must be addressed by technology, rules, and procedures.

Some of these problems may be addressed by initiatives in many countries to create secure online identity. For example, in April, 2011 the USA President, Barak Obama issued a "blueprint" for creating a system of digital identity. When such systems are developed they will be of great help to the courts in adopting and implementing E-filing.

Notes:

1) EFSP - Texas ( eFiling for Courts ) and others have developed e-filing systems based upon the concept of statewide portal with the end users being serviced by private corporations known as Electronic Filing Service Providers or EFSP.

2) The “circle of trust” quote is from the film – “Meet the Parents”: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212338/

3) The graphic accompanying this post is based upon the excellent graphics illustrating collaboration concepts published at: http://emergentbydesign.com/2010/07/01/guidelines-for-group-collaboration-and-emergence/

Connecticut bill would require state, in consultation with judicial branch, establish e-document standards and guidelines

2011-04-28T09:42:00.002-04:00

Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel.

The question of standards for the authentication and storage of e-documents, in particular court documents, is getting more and more legislative attention. Connecticut's HB 6600 of 2011 is a case in point.

Some background is in order.

SB 501 of 2010 created a task force to study converting legislative documents from paper to electronic form. A similar but separate task force was created via HB 5435 of 2010 to study ways in which state agencies and departments could reduce or eliminate duplicative procedures and the amount of paper used and how, when practicable, technology can be employed to help in such reduction or elimination.

The judiciary testified before both task forces. Efforts to end transcription of legislative proceedings were opposed by the judiciary, as witnessed by the testimony of Deputy Chief Court Administrator Judge Patrick l. Carroll, III (page 79). Chief Court Administrator Judge Barbara M. Quinn submitted testimony to the state agency paper task force noting among other things the court's use of e-filing and review of its business processes.

The resulting legislation, HB 6600 of 2011, contains a litany of ways to avoid paper, such as reducing the number of copies of statutes that get distributed (the number going to the judiciary would decrease and probate courts would have to specifically request copies) and moving much of the legislative process online.

For the courts, another element of note is Section 28:

Not later than January 1, 2012, the State Librarian shall, in consultation with the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, the Commissioner of Administrative Services, the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Information Technology, the executive director of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management and the Chief Court Administrator of the judicial branch, establish standards and guidelines for the preservation and authentication of electronic documents. (emphasis added)

HB 6600 was approved by the Joint Government Administration and Elections Committee and is currently pending final action in the House and Senate.

E-Filing coming soon to the Pennsylvania appellate courts

2011-04-26T12:42:00.003-04:00

According to the The Legal Intelligencer (subscription required) the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts is hoping to launch an e-filing system for a limited number of appellate filings, including petitions for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court, by the end of 2011. Justice J. Michael Eakin, the liaison justice for technology in the Pennsylvania courts, said that initially, e-filing will be optional. Superior Court prothonotary Karen R. Bramblett told the Philadelphia Bar Association last week the e-filing system will build on the appellate court's case management system and other existing case management systems, including the statewide criminal case management system.

Court technology is at the forefront of most State of the Judiciary Addresses

2011-04-25T11:43:00.000-04:00

At a time of tightening budgets, almost every state chief justice that has made a State of the Judiciary Address in 2011 has touted the benefits (financial or otherwise) of technology and the courts. Below are some highlights from those speeches.

The KIS division of the National Center for State Courts has an archive of 2011, 2010, and previous years State of the Judiciary addresses located here.

Alabama Almost all court forms now online e-forms. Use of direct deposit, online personnel/HR functions. Elimination of AOC weekly mailings in favor of phone/email. Use of computers in lieu of fax machines. Voice response system and website for child support and traffic payments. 100% e-filing for civil matters. Criminal e-filing program being expanded. Applications being developed for Family Court and juvenile cases. All training, registration, etc. for judicial education online. Pilot prison-to-court video hearings.

Alaska Successful Electronic Discovery pilot program (criminal cases). Use of YouTube videos for self-represented litigants. Statewide case management system (CourtView) in all 44 court locations.

Colorado Building statewide e-filing system. 2010 implementation of public access system.

Connecticut Website in English and Spanish.

Georgia 2010 implementation of Supreme Court e-filing system.

Hawaii More reliance on electronic case management system (JIMS) and expansion in 2010 to e-filing in appellate courts. E-filing to be implemented in criminal courts, followed by civil and family courts. Electronic bench warrant program won two awards in 2010. $15 million through electronic traffic collections system since 2007.

Idaho Provide online assistance through an interactive interview process to complete 160 court-approved forms for litigants. Updates and improvements to statewide case management system (ISTARS). ISTARS use for tax refund interceptions. Work with law enforcement to develop and implement electronic citations. Intend to implement electronic filing of documents in trial courts.

Indiana Electronic system notifies law enforcement when protection order filed and allows for online request for such orders. In future, requestors will receive notice of order by e-mail. Electronic system notifies law enforcement when person adjudicated mentally ill. Tax warrants now sent electronically directly to local courts. 200+ police departments not use Electronic Citation and Warning System. Extensive use of court case management system (Odyssey) in 77 courts in 26 counties. “Indiana’s courts are creating a 21st Century system...”

Iowa Testing e-filing and document retrieval system (EDMS) and expect full implementation in 5-6 years. Website allows online requests for justices and judges to come to communities to speak. Website video cast of Supreme Court proceedings suspended due to budget cuts.

Kansas Use of e-filing.

Maine Previously, eliminated technology duplication. E-filing is ultimate goal. Fines/tickets now paid online. Domestic violence orders and conditions of release on bail are now electronic. Use of centralized electronic warrant repository. Creation of “criminal information electronic broker” to sweep data in criminal cases from the court system into the State Bureau of Identification.

Nebraska Electronic payment system collected over$5 million in traffic fines in 2010, as well as over $2 million in other costs and fines. Electronic filing gaining momentum, with over 50% of new civil filings in county court systems made electronically. Last District Court not already part of unified computer system, will be converted in a matter of weeks; last Juvenile Court in months. Development of on-line interactive court forms. “No branch of this government is working harder to implement technology.”

Nevada Technology in the Courts – web cast, public information portals, E-filing, E-tickets.

New Mexico Expanding use of videoconferencing. New statewide case management system, including conversion of all papers filed in court into e-documents... New remote electronic filing. Work with law enforcement and others to coordinate electronic citations.

North Dakota Upgraded trial court case management system expected to be completed within budget and nearly two months ahead of schedule. Moved into a paper-on-demand environment where documents are electronically filed or scanned and stored as images.

South Carolina “Use of modern technology to automate court processes has been the centerpiece of my administration...” Could not afford a big mainframe computer system, with expensive hardware, software and maintenance cost, Internet-based platform instead. After 10 years have hit goals to create high-speed connectivity, create statewide uniform case management software, create websites for each county Clerk's office and for the state Judicial Branch, create a 24/7 call center providing on-going support for each county, and provide a standardized imaging system for putting paper documents into an automated system. Statewide Court Case Management System now 96 percent deployed; 100 percent in summer 2011. 29 counties IT hosted by S.C. Judicial Department. To pay for system described, business plan is to create a state-owned electronic filing system, based on a minimal fee, less than the federal fees or any other state. Build cost: $5 million. Expected to generate $7 million a year when operational.

South Dakota Updating computer software programs. Vendor selected and recommended a four year implementation program for new case management system. At the end of implementation in 2015, all programs up-to-date and electronic filing a reality.

Utah The push towards “e-everything“. Use of electronic record for all court business in all courts. Already launched e-filing in civil cases, e-payment of fees/fines/restitution, e-documents, e-warrants, e-citations. E-filing of criminal cases developed and awaiting launch of prosecutor's system.

Washington State “The core of what brings our hundreds of courts together every day is the Judicial Information System (JIS). Essentially, JIS equals justice…” Vehicle Related Violations Exchange under development will eliminate the need to physically transfer paper tickets to the courts. Creation of “JusticeNet”, an effort to use technology and broadband capability throughout the state to deliver information and services including courts, libraries, community centers, legal aid and defender organizations, the prosecutors association, the state bar and others.

Wyoming Electronic filing and docket management in the Supreme Court. Docket management system in about half of district courts and e-filing to follow. After district courts, circuit courts. Public computer terminals in some circuit courts already, rest to get terminals by end of 2011. Most judicial districts have video conferencing capability and are learning to use effectively. “next technological leap”: electronic citations and electronic payment of fines.

Federal Archives Posts FAQ on E-Records

2011-04-22T15:12:00.000-04:00

Courts are naturally concerned with the myriad of issues on archiving electronic records. The USA federal government National Archives have posed a new Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page regarding the use of the PDF/A-1 standard with their systems. There have also posted other useful information including:

Electronic Records Management Overview
Records Management Handbook
Records Management Toolkit
Records Management Policy and Guidance
Electronic Records Guidance

And of course information they have pages on their groundbreaking Electronic Records Archives project.

OK: Making a search of online court records an official part of a background check for child care workers

2011-04-20T11:30:00.001-04:00

The use of state court case management systems to run do-it-yourself background checks is common. There are a myriad of problems on relying solely on this of course, but the practice is not unheard of. Oklahoma, however, has taken it a step further and mandated these searches using the Oklahoma State Courts Network (OSCN).

Under HB 2643 of 2008, any person making an application to establish or operate a child care facility and their employees must first be run against OSCN, in addition to a national "criminal history records search."

SB 674 of 2011 clarifies the requirements and procedures for obtaining the OSCN and national criminal history records checks for individuals who own, work, live in, or have unsupervised access to children in child care facilities.

The 2011 bill appears likely to pass, having been approved by the Senate on March 10 and the House Human Services Committee on April 12.

Canadian Centre for Court Technology Announces New Director

2011-04-18T08:00:00.007-04:00

Via press release, March 31, 2011: The Board of Directors of the Canadian Centre for Court Technology - Centre canadien de technologie judiciaire (CCCT-CCTJ) today announced the appointment of Patrick Cormier as Chief Executive Officer.

The Co-Chairs of the Board, Ray Bodnarek, Deputy Attorney General of Alberta and Justice Frances Kiteley, Ontario Superior Court of Justice indicated that the members of the Board are delighted that Patrick had agreed to take on the responsibilities of CEO.

The Mandate for the CCCT is:

to provide leadership, and act as a catalyst to bring together stakeholders in order to create an atmosphere favourable to technological innovation and excellence in our court systems so as to enhance access to justice;
to support the preparation and promotion of guidelines and best practices needed to achieve interoperability among the various justice information systems;
to provide the tools and activities needed to exchange information and share knowledge about successful and unsuccessful experiments in fields of justice technology, pertinent to the Canadian context;
to play an active role in identifying and promoting best practices in relation to court technology and technology-related policies.

Patrick Cormier is a social media, technology and information management expert and president of Government 2.0 Think Tank Inc. His firm provides advice to government Departments and Agencies on how to best advance their information management and web 2.0 agenda. Prior to founding Government 2.0 Think Tank Inc., Mr. Cormier was a military lawyer from the Office of the Judge-Advocate General of the Canadian Forces. He regularly provides social media legal issues sessions to judges across the country under the auspices of the National Judicial Institute. Patrick is familiar with the CCCT-CCTJ as a result of his work as Intelleader for the Court Websites Intellaction Working Group which is tasked with preparing vendor-neutral guidelines to promote the modernization of Canadian court web sites.

A bilingual Quebec Bar Member, Patrick graduated from McGill University (common law and civil law programs) and from Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean in 1992 (B.Sc.).

Initially Patrick will serve on a part-time basis while he continues to operate his firm, Government 2.0 Think Tank Inc.

With the resounding success of the inaugural Forum on Court Technology in September 2010, the Board is looking to Patrick to further establish CCCT-CCTJ’s presence as the leader in court technology in Canada.

More information on the Canadian Centre for Court Technology - Centre canadien de technologie judiciaire can be found at http://ccct-cctj.ca/

Texas bill would require courts, judicial agencies post "high-value data sets" online

2011-04-15T09:00:00.007-04:00

Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel.

Novelist and attorney George Higgins once quipped that "Data is what distinguishes the dilettante from the artist." Whether true or not, the press for data, especially from courts, is an ongoing saga.

Into this comes Texas' SB 701 of 2011. The bill, as approved on a 31-0 vote of the the Texas Senate last week, would require "state agencies" (which for these purposes include any "board, commission, office, department, or other agency in the...judicial...branch of state government") to post high-value data sets online. Said "high-value data" must:

be raw data;
in an open standard format that allows the public to search, extract, organize, and analyze the information;
accessible from the the agency's Internet website home page under a uniform resource locator suffix "data"; and
be not more than two mouse clicks from the agency's Internet website home page

So, what is a "high-value data set"? According to the bill, it includes any information that meets any of the following criteria:

can be used to increase state agency accountability and responsiveness
improve public knowledge of the agency and its operations
further the core mission of the agency
create economic opportunity
respond to need and demand as identified through public consultation

Explicitly excluded is any information that is confidential or protected from disclosure under state or federal law. But things get even more interesting in the other exceptions. Data need be posted if and only if the "state agency":

determines that, using existing resources, the agency can post the data set on the Internet website at no additional cost to the state; or
enters into a contract advantageous to the state under which the contractor posts the data set on the Internet website at no additional cost to the state; or
receives a gift or grant specifically for the purpose of posting one or more of the agency's high-value data sets on the Internet website.

The bill is currently pending in the House but not yet assigned to a committee.

Dirty Consultant Tricks

2011-04-14T16:05:00.002-04:00

InfoWorld recently published an excellent article titled - 7 dirty consultant tricks (and how to avoid them). Unfortunately I have seen every one of these done to courts (from afar) during my more than 20 years here at the NCSC.

Conversely, a comment on the article linked to this posting on "8 Client Types That Are Nothing But a Pain in the A**" that contains some interesting observations from the consultant's viewpoint.

My experience is that if the project is poorly defined and/or they want the consultant to be the project leader are ingredients in the "recipe for disaster". As an FYI, we try to introduce good project management techniques in our Institute for Court Management class , Managing Technology Projects and Technology Resources that is available "in-person" and online.

Please read and learn. It will help you and your organization to avoid pain in the future.

"E is Okay"

2011-04-12T16:15:00.000-04:00

In a release the National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology wrote that Electronic Court Orders are allowable under federal guidelines. The statement begins:

"The electronic exchange of information between courts and child welfare agencies is a powerful tool that can lessen children’s time in foster care and efficiently provide all parties with the information they need to make timely and informed decisions about child safety, permanency and well‐being. As an increasing number of States move towards using automated information systems and electronic court orders, questions have been raised about whether electronic records are acceptable by Federal reviewers during a title IV‐E regulatory review. We are happy to announce, Federal policy under title IV‐E of the Social Security Act indicates that “e” for electronic is okay.

Regulations set forth in 45 CFR 1356.71 govern the review process used to determine a State agency’s compliance with title IV‐E eligibility provisions. As part of the Federal review process, the child’s service records, including all court orders, are examined to establish that the judicial requirements pertaining to title IV‐E are met. These include judicial determinations relating to “contrary to the welfare” and “reasonable efforts” for children who are judicially removed and “best interest” for children removed through a voluntary placement agreement. Chapter 3 of the “Title IV‐E Foster Care Eligibility Review Guide” contains relevant guidance about the use of electronic records in the regulatory review. The guide states the following:

“The State agency may use electronic files to substantiate title IV‐E eligibility. If electronic files are used on site, the State agency should make computers and technical assistance available to the reviewers for viewing the electronic records or obtain hard copies of all the files or portions of the files that contain information relevant to the review. “"

To read the full statement (PDF) click here.

Desktop Search Engines for the Forgetful

2011-04-07T15:59:00.000-04:00

In recent years I have been desperately looking for a search engine that can deal with 20 plus years of electronic files that have built up on my desktop computer. I’m sure that many of you have large amounts of documents, e-mails, and other files that in the “Age of Google”, should be instantly accessible. In recent years I have tried several desktop search engines including ones from Microsoft, Google, and the ISYS (many years ago) and Copernic systems. The only solution that I have found that meets my needs is named X1. X1 started as the Yahoo search engine that was later developed for the individual desktop computer. The X1 system has the ability to index both live and archived Microsoft Outlook e-mail as well as multiple versions of word processing documents including Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, and OpenOffice. And once indexed, I can search the titles and the contents of the documents and files. And of course I am able to restrict the search by a particular directory or date range.

Finally, I am not alone at the NCSC in using automated search. We use the Google Search Appliance to index everything available on the Center’s website on multiple systems. You can try out this search online at the main NCSC website. The search “box” is located in the upper right corner of the page.

For a list of desktop search engines click here.

Happy searching.

Advice for Keeping Judges (and the rest of us) Safe Online

2011-04-04T08:00:00.001-04:00

An interview of Stacia A. Hylton, Director of the U.S. Marshals Service in the March, 2011 edition of the U.S. Federal Court's Third Branch Newsletter contained some advice for judge's online safety.

"The explosion of the use of social media on the Internet has created a number of security challenges for the judiciary. Social media, along with the availability of personal information and public records on the Internet, create an environment of additional security risks. One such risk is the potential for the release of sensitive information. This could be as simple as a family member inadvertently posting information about the family’s home. These items can jeopardize the security of a federal judge.

Public information continues to pose challenges to the court family. For many years, the Marshals Service has advised the people we protect to have unlisted phone numbers and use the courthouse address instead of the home address whenever possible. Technology has provided greater access to information. Through computers, individuals can plug a little information into a public record search engine and receive a lot of information. For that reason, we strongly urge judges and other officials to complete “opt-out” forms for individual information providers. We have coordinated with the Administrative Office so that the opt-out information is available for judges to follow. Judges also need to be very conscious about who they give information to, and even where purchases are made. This is because data aggregators are constantly compiling and selling updated personal information to public record sites, for example, matching credit card numbers with home mailing addresses.

We have also recently begun briefing judicial officers and staff on the risk posed by “geo-tagging” of photographs posted to the Internet. GPS-enabled cameras, as well as iPhones, embed the longitude and latitude of the location a picture was taken. If, for example, a photo of a judge and his or her family is posted on certain Internet sites, someone can grab the geo-tag and identify the location of a private residence.

Just as with e-mail or phone calls, if a judge becomes aware of a threat or inappropriate communication on the Web, he or she should immediately notify the Marshals."

NH: House advances bill to require courts use open source software and open data formats

2011-03-31T10:20:00.003-04:00

Often, the judicial branch (not individual courts, but the entire branch) is treated legislatively like a "mere" agency and directed/ordered similarly with respect to state standards and statutes. New Hampshire HB 418 is no exception:

"State agency" means any department, commission, board, institution, bureau, office, or other entity, by whatever name called, including the legislative and judicial branches of state government, established in the state constitution, statutes, or executive orders.

HB 418 would have the judiciary and other "state agencies" use open source software and open data formats for their various systems. Moreover, the legislation requires the adoption of a statewide information policy regarding open government data standards through "consultation" with the executive branch's department of information technology. The department's commissioner would develop a statewide information policy based on principles spelled out in the bill.

Possible separation of powers arguments aside, the declarations made by the "general court" (in New Hampshire, the legislature is officially called the "general court") associated with the bill are notable in their own right as other states administratively, or yes even legislatively, try to grapple with the subject:

I. The general court finds that:

(a) The cost of obtaining software for the state’s computer systems has become a significant expense to the state;

(b) The personnel costs of maintaining the software on the state’s computers has also become a significant expense to the state;

(c) It is necessary for the functioning of the state that computer data owned by the state be permanently available to the state throughout its useful life;

(d) To guarantee the succession and permanence of public data, it is necessary that the state’s accessibility to that data be independent of the goodwill of the state’s computer system suppliers and the conditions imposed by these suppliers;

(e) It is in the public interest to ensure interoperability of computer systems through the use of software and products that promote open, platform-neutral standards;

(f) It is also in the public interest that the state be free, to the greatest extent possible, of conditions imposed by parties outside the state’s control on how, and for how long, the state may use the software it has acquired; and

(g) It is not in the public interest and it is a violation of the fundamental right to privacy for the state to use software that, in addition to its stated function, also transmits data to, or allows control and modification of its systems by, parties outside of the state’s control.

II. The general court further finds that:

(a) The acquisition and widespread deployment of open source software can significantly reduce the state’s costs of obtaining and maintaining software;

(b) Open source software guarantees that its encoding of data is not tied to a single provider;

(c) Open source software enables interoperability through adherence to open, platform-neutral standards;

(d) Open source software contains no restrictions on how, or for how long, it may be used; and

(e) Since open source software fully discloses its internal operations, it can be audited, at any time and by anyone of the state’s choosing, for internal functions that are contrary to the public’s interests and rights.

III. Therefore, it is in the public interest that the state of New Hampshire consider using open source software in its public computing functions.

Online Parking Violation Resolution System and More

2011-03-30T13:51:00.000-04:00

Quick notes from news items that appeared this week...

Online Parking Dispute Resolution System

A New York Times article published on March 22, 2011 describes a new system that allows for internet parking ticket rebuttal. The "online alternative ... allows residents to submit written rebuttals and upload supporting materials, like snapshots of where a missing traffic sign should be, to make their case" for disputing parking tickets. The system also allows for online payment of fines for red light and bus lane camera violations.

"Split Screen" Trial Coverage from the Press Room

CBS News notes that the US Federal Court in San Franciso is using a three video camera "split screen" for reporters to view the trial from their press room in the courthouse. The article also notes that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker " ready to make live coverage of the (earlier) same sex marriage trial available in federal courthouses across the country - and to the nation at large that night on YouTube. These plans were scuttled by the U.S. Supreme Court in a ruling that restricted coverage to the inside of the Federal Building."

US Federal Courts Reports on Smart Phones in Courthouses

NetworkWorld.com blogger Michael Cooney posted an interesting article titled "Should smartphones be allowed in the courthouse?" on March 28, 2011. The article lists both pros and cons for smart phones offered by the US Federal Courts Judicial Conference Committee ( for the full report in PDF click here ). Some of the "pro" arguments included the fact that attorneys are reliant on the technology and the use of wireless technology by stenographic court reporters. Some "cons" were disruption by the devices "ringing" even in "silent mode" and juror use.

Chris Crawford

2011-03-29T17:03:00.002-04:00

We here at the NCSC were sad to learn of the passing of Chris Crawford this past weekend. Chris was a giant in the court consulting and technology world first as a court manager and later as the President of Justice Served that provided assistance to courts around the world. The photo below was taken at the CTC8 conference in Kansas City, Missouri from the projection of Chris’ face on the big screen during the Super Session presentation. That session was one of the first to include live video conferencing technology. In recent years Chris' support and efforts on behalf of the Forum for the Advancement of Court Technology (FACT) were key in many successful conference presentations and in the overall progress of the organization. Chris was also well known for his annual Top 10 Court Website list. His knowledge and humor will be sorely missed. His obituary with much more on Chris published in the Eureka, California Times-Standard newspaper is available by clicking here.

Chris "on the big screen" at CTC8

FBI Announces Next Generation Identification System

2011-03-24T17:45:00.000-04:00

On March 08, 2011 the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation announced their next Generation Identification System (NGI), built by Lockheed Martin, delivers an incremental replacement of the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). NGI provides automated fingerprint and latent search capabilities, electronic image storage, and electronic exchange of fingerprints to more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies and other authorized criminal justice partners 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Upon completion, NGI will have the ability to process fingerprint transactions more effectively and accurately.

“The implementation announced today represents a tremendous achievement in enhancing our identification services. Already, we’re seeing how the NGI system is revolutionizing fingerprint identification in support of the FBI’s mission,” said Louis E. Grever, executive assistant director, FBI Science and Technology Branch.

In addition to the new fingerprint identification technology, the NGI program has also delivered Advanced Technology Workstations to the FBI’s fingerprint examiner staff. The workstations include significantly larger display screens with higher resolution and true color support, allowing staff to see more detailed attributes of biometric data for more efficient decision-making."

The project's website can be seen at: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/ngi/ngi2

CTC-2011 Keynote Speaker Announced

2011-03-22T15:45:00.001-04:00

Prolific television writer and television personality David Pogue will be the keynote speaker at this year’s Court Technology Conference. From his website:

“David Pogue writes the tech column for the New York Times every week, and in Scientific American every month. On TV, you may know him from his funny tech videos on CNBC every Thursday, or his stories for CBS Sunday Morning, or the NOVA miniseries he hosted on PBS, called "Making Stuff."

With over 3 million books in print, David is one of the world's bestselling how-to authors. He wrote or co-wrote seven books in the "for Dummies" series (including Macs, Magic, Opera, and Classical Music); in 1999, he launched his own series of complete, funny computer books called the Missing Manual series, which now includes 120 titles.

David graduated summa cum laude from Yale in 1985, with distinction in Music, and he spent ten years conducting and arranging Broadway musicals in New York. He's won an Emmy, a Loeb award for journalism, and an honorary doctorate in music. He's been profiled on "48 Hours" and "60 Minutes." He lives in Connecticut with his three children. His web site is www.davidpogue.com.”

His “short” biography does not do justice to all of his activities and interest. The tradition of interesting and thought provoking speakers at Court Technology Conferences continues.

Courts Have Always Charged Fees

2011-03-18T08:04:00.002-04:00

In an earlier CTB post we noted a presentation by Prof. Stephen Schultze and graduate student Tim Lee that criticized several aspects of the US Federal Courts approach to public access to court information and in particular, the fees that are charged by the PACER system.

PACER currently allows for several queries per month for no charge. It is only when they exceed that number of queries that users are charged (a FAQ regarding PACER can be found by clicking here). In brief, it is the presenter’s contention that all of the information should be made available to the public for free. And they have taken action by creating the RECAP program to help in this effort. Unfortunately, history does not support this.

The UK courts website notes on a web page, appropriately named, “Why We Charge” that the tradition of court fees reaches back “to the 13th century”.

“Fees have always been charged to users of the courts. Originally, fees were paid directly to the judges of the courts, who kept them personally, for the work they carried out…

The County Courts Act 1846 saw the creation of the court system (mostly how we know it today) and the introduction of judicial salaries. The Act provided that court fees would cover the full cost of running the courts, and through this, the courts would be self-funding.

Court fees paid for judges, clerks, bailiffs and accommodation. However, in 1856, it was accepted that judges’ salaries, buildings and ancillary expenses should be met by the taxpayer and not the court user through fees.”

Thus history teaches that the courts were conceived to be a “fee-based-service” to the public. And current fees in federal and state courts for filing, e-filing, and records production are in that tradition.

The financial difficulties that nearly every government currently face also severely restricts the ability of the courts to make new services such as E-filing and E-Access free to the public. One possible reason is that it is difficult to receive funding via the legislative process because it is nearly impossible to estimate a specific return on investment (ROI). In contrast, a private corporation can seek a loan or investment (scenes from the recent movie, “The Social Network” are particularly appropriate) to expand their business technology and hopefully make more profit. The courts and government are asked to “prove a negative”; that by investing in technology that costs will either be maintained, decrease, or reduce staff. Since many courts have already had to reduce staff due to budget cuts, they are understandably resistant to make this promise.

That said, I don’t know anyone in the courts that wouldn’t like to make all of the public services free. But here is the rub. Access fees can also potentially serve as a barrier for misuse of the court information. Some courts have experience embarrassment when they made data freely available online that in turn exposed personal information that could be used for identity theft and crimes. A fee serves as a small barrier to those who are using the information for commercial use in credit and background checks but a significant one for those who wish to “mine” data for mischievous purpose. And from a court’s view, allowing commercial access is not necessarily a bad thing since it shifts the search and network bandwidth load from the court’s to the private commercial systems. In summary, an access fee for information has additional benefits to the courts aside from revenue.

Now this is not to say that information cannot be accessed for free. Nearly every court has some type of public access terminal in the courthouse where a person can search and find information. But online and “bulk” data poses a different set of issues that in turn cost the courts to address. In that case, fees can be justified by need and tradition.

Court Automation Projects Critiqued

2011-03-14T08:00:00.003-04:00

Courts automation projects can greatly benefit from receiving well-reasoned and researched critiques. Two projects recently received such input.

California CCMS

The California Court Case Management System audit report was published by the California State Auditor in February, 2011. The Los Angeles Times newspaper noted in an article about the report :

“The state Judicial Council and court systems have spent $407 million so far on developing the system and have installed a limited version in seven counties, including Los Angeles and Sacramento. They plan to launch the full system in three counties — Ventura, San Diego and San Luis Obispo — as a next step.”

The California AOC responded to the report noting that they will adopt all of the audit report recommendations. Justice Terence L. Bruiniers, chairman of the Judicial Council’s CCMS Executive Committee noted:

“We have increased Judicial Council oversight of the project; expanded the participation of justices, judges, court administrators, attorneys, and justice partners; and created a project management office.”

Additional information regarding the system and reports are posted at the California AOC CCMS website: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtadmin/ccms/

Federal Court PACER

Prof. Stephen Schultze and graduate student, Tim Lee, of the Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy recently made a presentation at the New York University School of Law on the US Federal Court’s online systems and specifically PACER. The presentation was video recorded and is available for online viewing (requires Microsoft Silverlight)

The presentation made several interesting points regarding current systems:

1. Current PACER limitations
2. Document authentication
3. Lack of document and data structure (XML)
4. The proposal to allow the private (and non-profit) world access to have bulk access to the information
5. A number of problems regarding sensitive and private information made available in PACER and options for corrective action.

There were also several points made regarding automation fees and budgets require a more extensive discussion for a later CTB article.

Colorado bill would create judicial public access system advisory board

2011-03-11T09:13:00.007-05:00

Colorado's Judiciary has had a Public Access System (PAS) and Electronic Filing System (EFS) for years. According to their website "Over the next two years, the Colorado Judicial Branch’s PAS/EFS team will build a new electronic filing system that will replace the Branch’s current e-filing vendor by January 2013."

Enter Colorado HB 1282 of 2011.

The bill specifically provides a statutory obligation for the judicial department to provide a public access system for certain court records that direct-paying users and nonpaying users can access remotely. The bill prohibits the judicial department from restricting a direct-paying user from replicating the information on its system.

The bill also creates a Judicial Public Access System Advisory Board to govern the aforementioned system. The board would set the price schedule for access by direct-paying users and approve any changes to the schedule, determine what information will be available through the system and in what form it will be available, and address any other matter relevant to the system.

The board itself would consist of 9 members, including 4 legislators, 1 office of information technology (executive branch) staff member, 2 judicial department employees, and 2 vendors. The 2 judicial department employees (one of whom would chair the board) and 2 vendors would be selected by the chief justice.

The bill is currently pending in the House State, Veterans, & Military Affairs committee.

Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel.

Florida Judge Using SharePoint for E-Filing

2011-03-09T16:51:00.000-05:00

On February 17, 2011 Law Technology News published an article: Fla. Judge's 'Outlook on Steroids' Blazes E-Filing Trail. The article describes how Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Israel Reyes has been using the collaboration capabilities of Microsoft SharePoint to facilitate electronic document communications with litigants in his court. The article also unfortunately also details the requirement for paper copies to be transmitted and filed.

Federal Courts Issue Pocket Guide for Sealed Records

2011-03-07T13:32:00.001-05:00

The February, 2011 edition of The Third Branch newsletter from the US Federal Courts contains an interesting article titled: "Pocket Guide for Federal Judges Focuses on Sealed Records, Proceedings". "Published by the Federal Judicial Center, the 22-page pocket guide draws upon the voluminous case law the process courts use to keep some of their proceedings and records confidential."
The guide is available online for download in PDF (244 Kb) by clicking here.

The Future is Not Paper - Part 4

2011-03-04T15:17:00.004-05:00

Syndicated Court Calendars

Court calendaring is simply a nightmare. But as we all know, calendars are the grease in the court's wheels. And without the structure and schedules, the judicial process would be chaos. But while Case Management Systems have done a good job of being able to store preferences and automatically search for the next available time based upon a jurisdiction's complex rules, these capabilities and information sharing have not extended beyond the courthouse walls.

One brief example: In 2005, the Governor of the State of New Mexico, Bill Richardson asked the legislature for additional judges partly because of scheduling issues. The Police Sergeant in charge of DWI crime in Albuquerque, NM reported that:

"scheduling nightmares abound for officers. In a single afternoon, he's been scheduled to attend three trials and three pretrial interviews. That's problematic because arresting officers are often the only witnesses in DWI cases so many are dismissed when officers fail to appear in court.

"I have eight officers on this unit, and they make 2,200 to 2,500 DWI arrests a year," Brown said. "When I get a (failure to appear) notice on one of them, I research it, and a lot of times I find that one officer was scheduled in 12 different courtrooms in the morning alone."(see Endnote 1)

Courts use primarily manual processes to calendar and schedule (I've even seen white boards). The current "technologies" are:

The automated CMS for setup and recording the core calendar structure and scheduling events.
Telephone and E-mail with voice and manual negotiation by staff (calendar clerks and judicial assistants) and requesting attorneys, paralegals, and litigants.
Face-to-face meetings (in courtrooms, chambers, etc.) with everyone consulting their individual calendars is one of the most common ways that schedules are set.
And even a few courts employing instant messaging
All methods employ a lot of personal time and effort to communicate even the most basic information.

But there are some interesting ideas that have been developing in recent years that could be part of a future solution. John Udell is a "Technology Evangelist" with Microsoft Corporation and formerly a columnist with InfoWorld and the "classic" Byte magazines as well as a person who's writings I follow closely via his blog.

In recent years he became interested in problems surrounding calendars and their inefficiency and ineffectiveness. And this past December (2010) he gave a talk at Harvard University Law School's Berkman Center.(see Endnote 2). The video webcast for online or download viewing can be found at: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/luncheon/2010/12/udell In the talk he explains his "elmcity project" that created a web enabled community calendar supporting "information syndication".

There are a lot of ideas in that last sentence and so let's break it down:

1. Web Enabled - meaning that it can easily send and receive information using internet standards.
2. Community - meaning shared and open.
3. Information syndication - meaning you can subscribe to personally receive the information being shared in the calendar.

Now doesn't something like that sound like there are some ideas in there that might make the tortured world of court calendaring and scheduling easier? I think so; and therefore let's continue.

Specifically as he writes in his blog post about elmcity and his Harvard talk:

Realize that event data published in a structured format, unlike data published as HTML or PDF, can be routed through a publication/subscription syndication networks.
Make public calendars available in the appropriate structured format: iCalendar (RFC 5545), the venerable Internet standard supported by all major calendar applications and services.
Recognize that iCalendar is the RSS of calendars. It can enable a calendar-sphere in which, as in the blogosphere, everyone can publish their own feeds and also subscribe to feeds from other people or from network services.
Help build the data web by owning the parts of it for which we ourselves are the authoritative sources.

Let's talk about this iCalendar standard. Nearly everyone uses the iCalendar standard if you have a smart phone (like a Blackberry) that automatically connects with your Microsoft Exchange Calendar; even if you don't realize it. This is the best kind of standard for users because you don't need to do anything, it just simply works.

But John Udell realized that it could and should do more. As originally developed iCalendar was limited in the usual scope of implementation. An analogy might be "texting" between cell phones before Twitter. Texting basically is one to one communications while Twitter allows the message to be sent to anyone who subscribes to the feed. And one other fact, many of the commercial Court Case Management Systems vendors already have provided connections/extensions from the court calendar to Microsoft Exchange and/or to the iPhone/Blackberry using the iCalendar standard.

So with the "elmcity project" Mr. Udell has created an ability for the shared calendar to be fed the information from many sources and in turn, send that calendar schedule to those who subscribe. The elmcity service is an example of what Rohit Khare memorably called syndication-oriented architecture. And while "elmcity" doesn't replace the court's CMS calendar, it provides a concept for a web service that extends and facilitates calendaring information sharing via the web. And in another article Mr. Udell explains how one can manage their private and public calendars together. Again, doesn't this sounds a lot like what courts do every day?

http://blog.jonudell.net/2010/05/19/how-to-manage-private-and-public-calendars-together/

He has published an extensive FAQ about the elmcity project at:

http://blog.jonudell.net/elmcity-project-faq/

And as mentioned above, to see some elmcity calendars that have already been created go to:

http://elmcity.cloudapp.net/

Therefore in summary, there is a standard, iCalendar that allows for scheduling information to be created and shared. The elmcity project provides for subscription and syndication of that information to those who choose to receive it.

Much more discussion to come?
----
Endnotes:

1) Retrieved from: http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/9346.html in 2009 from an Associated Press article published on January 17, 2005 titled: Richardson pledges more judgeships, more funding for prosecutors at DWI summit.

2) We here at the NCSC are long time admirers of the Berkman Center staff having hosted two keynote speakers at Court Technology Conferences, Prof. Jonathan Zittrain in 1999 and Prof. Charles Ogletree in 2001.

Maine: One sentence bill directs judicial branch to upgrade its computer system

2011-03-04T11:04:00.000-05:00

Typically legislation related to a state judiciary's computer system(s) are parts of budget bills or sections of other non-appropriations bills related to the judiciary. Maine's HB 644 of 2011, however, may go on record as the single shortest and most direct piece of legislation on the matter ever.

Below is the sum total of the bill (formatting in original):

Resolve, To Streamline the Judicial Process in Maine's Courts

Sec. 1. Judicial Department to upgrade its computer system. Resolved: That the Judicial Department shall design and implement a plan to upgrade its computer system to ensure access by Maine citizens and attorneys to electronic filing and scheduling online.

The bill's summary is almost as long as the bill itself:

This resolve directs the Judicial Department to design and implement a plan to upgrade its computer system to ensure access by Maine citizens and attorneys to electronic filing and scheduling online.

The bill has yet to be assigned to a committee, but presumably it would be sent to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Interesting note: Maine is one of three states (Connecticut and Massachusetts are the others) that rely primarily on joint judiciary committees.

Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel.

Colorado: Bill would require private companies that maintain criminal court records purge their data when court orders records sealed

2011-03-03T09:00:00.002-05:00

It is somewhat of a truism that nothing is ever truly lost or forgotten on the internet. Colorado's HB 1203 of 2011, as passed by the state's House on February 23, looks to put the genie somewhat back in the bottle.

Under CRS 24-72-308, if a Colorado State court orders a criminal record sealed, "each custodian of the records" must seal the record. But "custodian" is limited to "the official custodian or any authorized person having personal custody and control of the criminal justice records in question." Private companies are therefore not included.

HB 1203 keeps the existing definition of "custodian" but defines a "private custodian" as "a private entity that has custody of the information and provides that information to others as a part of its business." These "private custodians" would also be subject to court orders requiring the sealing of criminal records. After being served with a copy of the order, the private custodian "shall remove the records that are subject to [the] order from its database."

Indiana: Floor amendment to unrelated bill would require courts provide bulk data

2011-03-02T11:05:00.006-05:00

Courts have been contending with how to handle bulk data requests for years. Recently, however, efforts in Arizona and other states have sought to bypass the courts and mandate the disbursement by legislative act. The most recent example is in Indiana.

SB 561, as introduced, dealt with corrections and sentencing. A floor amendment, added on February 21 however, requires the division of state court administration to implement a standard program for disseminating bulk court case information for a reasonable fee. Moreover, the bill requires an executive branch agency (the Indiana Office of Technology) annually certify that case management systems operated or funded by the division of state court administration comply with this program.

Finally, while the amendment allows for the charging of "a reasonable fee" it defines "reasonable" as "not [to] exceed the direct cost of operating the export program and delivering data to the recipient plus a prorated fee to recoup the direct costs of developing the export program. In any one (1) year, the aggregate prorated fees charged under this subdivision may not exceed five percent (5%) of the direct costs of developing the export program."

The bill, as amended, was approved by the full Senate 2/22/11 and is currently in the House awaiting committee assignment.

Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel.

Florida: Frustration over inability to come up with privacy rules for online court records

2011-03-01T12:15:00.003-05:00

In 2003, the Florida Supreme Court created a Committee on Privacy and Court Records with the laudable goal of set policies of the information available on court records in general, and electronically accessible records in particular (read the order creating the committee here).

Eight years later the debate continues, much to the chagrin of Justice Barbara Pariente who has asked committee members to "get on the stick and get the rest done." According to The Lakeland Ledger, the committee has only now "proposed rules for excluding personal information such as Social Security and credit card numbers from court files if not required to resolve or manage cases. Criminal and traffic cases, though, would be exempt as committees for those two segments of the judicial system have yet to submit recommendations for removing personal information from case filings." Questions about the use or entire (or partial) Social Security Numbers, names of minors, and the sheer volume of data involved continue to plague the committee.

Legal XML E-Filing Standard Revision Review for Comment Announced

2011-02-28T10:34:00.010-05:00

Via e-mail from OASIS-Open.org on February 26, 2011: The OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing TC members have recently approved a Committee Specification Draft (CSD) and submitted this specification for 30-day public review.

This OASIS Technical Committee was chartered to will develop specifications for the use of XML to create legal documents and to transmit legal documents from an attorney, party or self-represented litigant to a court, from a court to an attorney, party or self-represented litigant or to another court, and from an attorney or other user to another attorney or other user of legal documents.

Overview: This document defines the LegalXML Electronic Court Filing 4.01 (ECF 4.0) specification, which consists of a set of non-proprietary XML and Web services specifications, along with clarifying explanations and amendments to those specifications, that have been added for the purpose of promoting interoperability among electronic court filing vendors and systems. ECF Version 4.01 is a maintenance release to address several minor schema and definition issues identified by implementers of the ECF 4.0 specification.

Public Review Period: The public review starts today, 26 February 2011 and ends 28 March 2011.

This is an open invitation to comment. OASIS solicits feedback from potential users, developers and others, whether OASIS members or not, for the sake of improving the interoperability and quality of its technical work.

URIs: The prose specification document and related files are available here:

Editable Source (Authoritative):

http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/ecf-v4.01-spec-csprd01.doc
HTML:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/ecf-v4.01-spec-csprd01.html
PDF:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/ecf-v4.01-spec-csprd01.pdf

XML Schemas:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/xsd/

Other specification artifacts:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/specs/ecf/v4.01/ecf-v4.01-spec/csprd01/

Additional information about the specification and the OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing TC may be found at the TC's public home page:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/legalxml-courtfiling/

Comments may be submitted to the TC by any person through the use of the OASIS TC Comment Facility which can be located via the button labeled "Send A Comment" at the top of the TC public home page, or directly at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbrev=legalxml-courtfiling

Comments submitted by TC non-members for this work and for other work of this TC are publicly archived and can be viewed at:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/legalxml-courtfiling-comment/

Predicting Technology

2011-02-25T15:55:00.002-05:00

Earlier this week I was looking for an article in the old printed versions of the Court Technology Bulletin and ran across an article on the 1996 COMDEX computer exposition in the January/February 1997 edition. At that conference I had the privilege of seeing a presentation by Intel CEO, Andy Grove who would later be named 1997 Time Magazine's "Person of the Year".

During the address Mr. Grove made the following prediction about computer power in the year 2011 that we documented in the CTB.

"What Will 2011 Bring?" (1997 CTB article)

"Today's top PC microprocessors contain 5.5 million transistors (using .35 micron fabrication technology), run at 200 MHz, and process 400 million instructions per second.

In his COMDEX keynote address, Andy Grove, president and CEO of Intel Corporation, predicts that the computer of the year 2011 will have one billion transistors (based on .07 micron technology), run at 10 GHz, and process 100 billion instructions per second. Such a PC would be 250 times more powerful than today's top-of-the-line Pentium Pro machines, in a little over a decade."

So let's see how Andy did? Recently Intel announced yet another generation of processor chips, code named "Poulson" for 2011. The specifications say:

3.1 Billion Transistors (Andy predicted 1 billion)
32 nano-micron technology (Andy predicted 70 nano-microns)
The new chip has 8-12 core processors. This parallel processing allows the overall chip to exceed Andy's prediction of 10 GHz by splitting work between the core processors.

I couldn't find a direct comparison regarding computer instructions per second because the new chips are rated in Gigaflops.

So Andy was a little conservative on his predictions (although the currently released i7 chips are very close).

What does this mean? Computers are still getting faster. It is our challenge to figure out how to use all that power effectively to help with the work of the courts. For some possible examples of how this might be headed, Microsoft issued this video on their user interface work (3.5 minutes) that takes advantage of the increasing computing power.

City of Dallas, Texas Seeks CCMS

2011-02-24T16:23:00.000-05:00

The City of Dallas, Texas has posted an RFP for a new Court Case Management System (Solicitation Number BUZ1107). The notice states: "The purpose of this solicitation is to seek interested and qualified parties to implement a turnkey replacement Court Case Management System that will serve the needs of the City of Dallas with best in class maintainable products, with world class performance and lowest total cost of ownership over the life of the System. The City reserves the right to award by method deemed most advantageous to the City. Specifications and all associated documents may be viewed and downloaded at www.bids.dallascityhall.org."

The Future is Not Paper - Third in a Series

2011-02-18T20:51:00.001-05:00

How to Verify a Court Document?

Before the technical troubles with the Court Technology Bulletin occurred in the summer of 2010, I had started a series of articles on that the future of court information is not based upon paper documents. Part 1 and Part 2 can be viewed by clicking on the respective links.

The present “myth" and reality is that a paper court document with a rubber stamp or embossed seal is magically accepted as authentic by all legal authorities. This is true despite the fact that any elementary school child with a computer and printer (or even white-out and a copier) can forge a paper document. And unfortunately in recent years there are multiple instances where a fraudulent court document was faxed to a jail and an inmate mistakenly released.

Certainly the banking and financial industry understand that their authentic records are electronic. And even when a paper financial documents such as "bearer bonds" are created, great effort is made (as with paper currency) using various printing techniques such as embedded fibers and micro-printing to authenticate the physical document (some are wonderful works of art such as this fraudulent one). However, the courts cannot afford to undertake such time consuming and expensive activities. Instead, it is the court’s online electronic document systems that must provide access to the authentic copy of the document that is not otherwise sealed or protected.

But there is a significant problem that must be addressed to make documents easier to retrieve and verify via the Internet. This is where the work of the URN:Lex or Universal Resource Name, Legal begins. The basic concept is that every legal document submitted to or produced by the court (and ideally the entire legal system) would be assigned a unique reference number.

Specifically, “(t)he purpose of the "lex" namespace is to assign an unequivocal identifier, in standard format, to documents that are sources of law. The identifier is conceived so that its construction depends only on the characteristics of the document itself and is, therefore, independent from the document's on-line availability, its physical location, and access mode.”

For the full technical details of the currently circulated draft standard see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-spinosa-urn-lex-02

A unique reference number greatly facilitates retrieval of the document from any system and any type of database or file system that would reside in the court or on an open or commercial system; and it would be consistent for all future retrieval systems that are developed. In addition to easy retrieval and reference, there is a great possibility for URN:Lex to address a vexing problem of electronic information - document recall. Courts continually wish to identify and update documents that are incorrect or expired. The URN:Lex approach allows notifications to be posted and/or distributed; and further allows for systems to be developed with persistent hyper-links such as the online legal publishers have created for statutory and case references.

And finally, this is not to say that visible verification (document file stamps) is not of benefit. Several courts are adding visible indications of electronic filing as a watermark using the widely available PDF capability. But a visible verification that includes the URN:Lex would serve multiple legal system needs. To see a crude example click here.

Parking Technology?

2011-02-15T14:16:00.001-05:00

One of the court manager's more off-beat but stressful jobs is to manage the courthouse parking lot. Some recent technology introduced in France might be of interest... parking spot sensors. The sensors are buried in the pavement can report via cell phone where empty spaces are located. For more see the IT World article "Take us to your leader('s parking spot).

NM: Two pieces of legislation to restrict or end court e-filing

2011-02-11T14:38:00.003-05:00

Numerous state legislatures have been exceptionally active in promoting or advancing bills to permit or require e-filing in state courts. New Mexico's Senate, however, may be the first state legislative chamber be to actively working against such efforts.

SB 328 repeals the judiciary's "electronic services fund" and transfers the balance to the state's general fund. According to the fiscal impact note prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee, "SB 328 would effectively end the ability of courts to implement efiling in New Mexico."

The same senator that authored SB 328 has also introduced this week SB 388 which declares the state's courts "shall not charge an electronic services fee to persons who choose not to use electronic services and shall allow persons to file and access documents without using electronic services."

SB 328 is in the Senate Judiciary Committee, while SB 388 is in the Senate Public Affairs Committee.

Cross-posted at the Gavel to Gavel blog

Projects in Progress - February, 2011

2011-02-11T08:00:00.002-05:00

The CTB receives PR announcements from companies regarding court technology projects. Some recent ones are:

From Tyler Technologies:

January 27, 2011 – Tyler Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: TYL) announced today it has signed a contract with Pinellas County, Florida, for Tyler’s Odyssey® integrated justice suite. The agreement, valued at approximately $6.8 million, includes software licenses, professional services, maintenance and support.

February 3, 2011 – Tyler Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: TYL) has signed a contract valued at approximately $10 million to provide its Odyssey® integrated justice suite to Fulton County, Georgia. Fulton County, which has a population of more than one million and is home to Atlanta, has invested in a broad range of Tyler’s Odyssey applications including Case Manager, Prosecutor, Supervision, Law Enforcement, Jail Manager, Financial Manager and Public Access.

Orange County, California Expands E-Filing with OneLegal

Novato, CA, February 03, 2011 --(PR.com)-- Recently, the Superior Court of California, County of Orange posted an advisory on their website: “eFILING AVAILABLE FOR ALL CIVIL CASES.” The advisory speaks to the court’s desire to run more efficiently while faced with looming state budget cuts.

In a recent report by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), several Superior Courts in California were identified as overfunded, though long lines at many courts’ filing windows and reduced hours seem to tell an entirely different story. The LAO’s claim has already received a strong, public rebuttal from the San Francisco Superior Court.

While the LAO and courts continue their debate, Orange County Superior Court is taking action. In early 2010, the Court contracted with Novato based One Legal LLC to build and manage an electronic portal to the Court that allows legal professionals to electronically file and serve legal documents for Civil cases in a secure environment. The Court’s website states, “Because the Court expects there to be less money to operate the courts in the future, we must find less costly ways to process the existing volume of filings with fewer staff. The new eFiling system will reduce the cost to the Court by delivering both the document and information about the document directly into the Court’s data systems.”

A fifty percent increase in expected filings within the first six months is proof the new system is working. “This is another step in the Orange County Superior Court’s transition to an all electronic record that provides better, faster access to court records for everyone at a lower cost to the taxpayer,” said Orange County Court Executive Officer Alan Carlson in an eFiling case study done by One Legal.

CourtCall Saves Time and Money and CO2

In a press release date December 9, 2010, CourtCall noted:

"In 2010, alone, Judges helped lawyers to skip over 1,000,000 trips to and from courts in State, Federal and Bankruptcy Courts in both the largest and smallest Courts one can imagine and they are to be applauded,” said Bob Alvarado, CourtCall’s CEO. 'That conservatively converts to over $150,000,000.00 in attorney time savings and the elimination of tons of CO2,' observed Mark S. Wapnick, CourtCall’s President, who conceived of the turn-key telephonic appearance program."

Paper on Demand Series

2011-02-09T08:00:00.001-05:00

The COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee has created a series of briefs on Paper on Demand concepts and projects. The papers cover:

PDF/A, more than just archiving

2011-02-07T15:35:00.000-05:00

Everyone knows what a PDF document is. But few understand the different versions of PDF and in particular, the national and international standards that have created that govern the format. A brief introduction to the subject is contained in the Future Trends 2010 article: Electronic Documents: Benefits and Potential Pitfalls.

The following article by Thomas Zellerman is reprinted with permission from the PDF/A Competence Center(1) January, 2011 Newsletter lists other aims for the PDF/A standards work that could potentially benefit the courts and legal process.

"The obvious reason anybody looks at adopting PDF/A is because they have a need to keep good archives for a certain time. Good may mean they want to be able to have exact visual reproduction of the documents in the archive, or it may go further and they might want to also guarantee semantic correctness of the documents. Likewise the range of meanings for a “certain time” may span from 7 to 10 years for tax papers, or to forever for libraries or national archives. But in most projects, people remain very focused on the archival side of the problem and the risk is that other opportunities are missed as a result.

That is a shame: taking a step back and looking at PDF/A as an ISO standard amongst many other similar PDF-based ISO standards can show additional opportunities and reasons to standardize on PDF/A.

So lets take a step back: PDF/A is an ISO standard based on another ISO standard, PDF (ISO 32000). This means that PDF/A documents are PDF files on which additional restrictions and demands are
placed. And following that same method, the ISO has developed and is still developing a number of
other standards that can be very interesting for companies looking at PDF/A. Some examples:

PDF/X was the first PDF-based standard adopted and further developed by the ISO. As far back as 2001, ISO PDF/X was created to allow the use of PDF files in the print and publishing market.
PDF/E is an ISO standard for use in engineering workflows, allowing for 3D drawings in PDF files.
PDF/UA is becoming an ISO standard to create standardized accessible documents; allowing for example visually impaired people to use screen-reader applications with PDF files in a reliable way.

Does that mean that companies looking at PDF/A today should instead adopt all of these standards? Not necessarily, but it would be a good thing to at least look at those other standards and understand how they could play a role.

It is also important when evaluating tools for use in PDF/A workflows. While some tools focus exclusively on PDF/A, there are certainly also tools on the market that add value towards some or all of these additional standards. And if such standards now or in the future hold value for a company, the selection of which tools are used should follow that realization.

And lastly, knowing those other standards is important when building the business case around adoption of PDF/A in a company. Additional demands such as the necessity to print or publish archived documents or convert them into accessible documents may very well change the scope of the project and lend additional credibility to standardizing on PDF/A as a way to prepare for things to come."

--
(1) As stated on their website: "The aim of the PDF/A Competence Center is to promote the exchange of information and experience in the area of long-term archiving in accordance with ISO 19005: PDF/A."

2011 National Forum on Criminal Justice & Public Safety July 31-August 2

2011-02-04T08:56:00.003-05:00

Sponsored by the National Criminal Justice Association, the IJIS Institute, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the 2011 National Forum on Criminal Justice and Public Safety showcases programs and technologies that help justice practitioners and decision makers in states, local communities and tribal nations address these pressing public safety issues today and in the future. Last year 91 percent of attendees reported that they learned useful strategies and ideas that they could take home and implement immediately. Eighty-seven percent of attendees said the Forum was important for their professional development.

For more information about the National Forum please visit www.ncja.org or www.national-forum.net.

Recently introduced e-filing bills

2011-01-28T14:02:00.002-05:00

Much has been made, particularly in the recent spate of State of the Judiciary Speeches, about the boon and promise of e-filing in state courts. In just the last week legislators in five states introduced or advanced bills related to the subject.

Arizona SB 1185 Would change the state's existing laws that allow the Supreme Court and Superior Courts (pursuant to rules adopted by the Supreme Court) to have e-filing to require they do ("may" to "shall") Moreover, the bill would require the electronic access to court records and add bulk data to required material the courts shall provide. It is currently in the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee.

Oregon HB 2690 (link to legislature's website, no direct link to bill status page) takes a different tack. It allows the state;s Chief Justice to establish reasonable subscription fees, and other user and transaction fees, for remote access to case information and other Judicial Department forms, reports and services that are available in electronic form. Moreover, it modifies laws on filing of trial court transcripts on appeal to allow for the electronic filing of the transcript. It is in the House Judiciary Committee.

South Dakota HB 1038 requires the clerk of that state's Supreme Court collect certain fees for the electronic transmission of court records. That bill was approved by the House Committee on Judiciary on January 21 and by the full House on January 25.

Virginia SB 1369 would allow Circuit Court Clerks to charge a fee of $25 for civil or criminal proceedings filed electronically and an additional $10 fee for subsequent filings in such proceedings. The funds would be directed to the clerk's local fund to cover operational expenses of the electronic filing system. That bill is currently in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee.

Finally, Wyoming HB 190 offers what amounts to an e-filing discount of sorts. The bill provides for the electronic submittal of fees, fines, bonds and penalties to circuit courts and authorizes the Supreme Court to reduce the aforementioned fines, bonds and penalties if submitted electronically. That bill is currently in the House Judiciary Committee.

Cross-posted at the Gavel to Gavel blog

The Administrative Office of the US Courts issues RFP

2011-01-24T13:45:00.000-05:00

The Administrative Office of the US Courts issued an RFP for a case management system. The solicitation states that it "is for the acquisition, modification, and deployment of a new, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solution for the Office of Defender Services (ODS) of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to replace the existing Case Management System (CMS) for Federal Defender Organizations (FDOs). The CMS includes management of all case-related information and time keeping on representations handled by the FDOs."

Click here for the full solicitation.

Catching Up

2011-01-21T09:42:00.002-05:00

In the time period between the old version of the CTB and this new one there was of course a lot of activity in the court technology world. A few items of note:

The NCSC held two E-Courts Conferences in Tampa, Florida in September, 2010 and in Las Vegas in December, 2010. More than 500 persons attended the two conferences. Details about the conferences can be found at the conference website with the presentation slides.

In September, 2010 via a grant from the State Justice Institute, the NCSC released the results on the use of video conferencing in state courts across the country. The report contains the results on various topics, including: Sources of funding for video conferencing systems; extent of video for various types of proceedings; and statutes governing the use of video conferencing. More than 700 statues and rules were found and compiled.

And in December, 2010, Derek Coursen and I published an article titled "A Framework for Logical Data Models in the Courts" at The Data Administration Newsletter website. This technical paper identifies "certain patterns regarding representation of data on actors in the judicial process, cases, component matters (charges and civil claims), and events and tasks are generically applicable to any court situation."

This is not all that happened...more to come.

Iowa Chief Justice: Full, statewide e-filing & e-document management in 5-6 years

2011-01-18T15:26:00.003-05:00

Last week Iowa Chief Justice Mark Cady presented the State of the Judiciary address for 2011. In it, the Chief Justice noted the importance of court technology in the state.

EDMS and Civil Justice Reform
We are testing a system for electronic filing and retrieval of documents. This system, which we call EDMS, expands access to justice beyond the courthouse walls. It enables litigants, lawyers, and others to file and access court records online, at anytime, night and day. It saves Iowans the cost and inconvenience of traveling to the courthouse to conduct their business. It gives judges access to records as soon as they are filed. If everything goes as planned and we have sufficient resources to move ahead, we should have EDMS fully implemented in five or six years.

Promoting Understanding about the Work of Courts
Lastly, it is my hope that we can move forward with a shared commitment for a greater understanding of our courts and their important role in maintaining our democracy. This understanding can best be achieved by making our courts even more transparent.

Up until a year ago, the [Iowa Courts] website also provided a video cast of supreme court proceedings, but this procedure was a victim of the budget cuts.

For more from the State of the Judiciary Address, click here.

MI: Supreme Court order permits e-filing pilot testing

2011-01-15T08:50:00.000-05:00

The Michigan Supreme Court has granted permission for a pilot e-filing project in the state. Administrative Order 2010-6 permits Macomb County to try the pilot "to study the effectiveness
of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper filings...All state courts in Michigan are envisioned as eventually permitting e-filing (with appropriate modifications and
improvements)." The project began January 1 and is authorized until December 2012. (h/t Michigan Lawyer)