Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Thursday, December 1, 2016
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Friday, November 18, 2016
The CTB has been delving into a lot of serious subjects lately. So I thought it was time for a little fun. In this post, I share a note about my favorite Google Chrome browser extensions.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Thanks to our good friend Bonnie Hough we learned that the Maryland Judiciary has a free mobile app that provides easy access to tools and resources to aid Marylanders in using the courts and getting legal help. The Maryland Law Help app includes: self-help videos, court form finders, direct links to CALL or CHAT directly with an attorney at the Md. Courts Self-Help Center, access to the People's Law Library and court legal help pages, as well as information on law libraries, mediation and language access. The app is available for Apple and Android devices through the App Store and Google Play. For more information see: http://mdcourts.gov/legalhelp/mobileapp.html
Congratulations to the Maryland Judiciary for some great work.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
|Microsoft Surface Studio|
It was a busy month in court technology. In this post we share news about judicial decision prediction system, a court rejecting e-signed documents, a new online traffic ticket mediation implementation, several Microsoft related technology announcements, and last call for the Australia legal and court technology conference registration.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
We are pleased to share the following article by Mr. Dallas Powell, President of Tybera, Inc., an E-filing services company. In the article he shares their experience with law firms and government agencies connecting directly to the court's EFM (E-Filing Manager) services.
Friday, October 14, 2016
|US Federal Courthouse Las Cruces NM|
An article posted at qz.com (Quartz) discusses the court case regarding fees for the public use of the US Federal Courts PACER system. The article notes:
“the paywall that surrounds Pacer is facing what may be its most serious test since the service emerged 28 years ago. Judge Ellen Huvelle of the US district court in Washington DC is expected to decide in the coming days whether a lawsuit accusing the government of setting Pacer fees at unlawfully high rates can proceed.
The case, which is seeking class-action certification, is being led by three nonprofits: the National Veterans Legal Service Program, the National Consumer Law Center, and the Alliance for Justice. Each group says it has downloaded documents from Pacer and incurred charges alleged to exceed the cost of providing the records. All say the setup violates the E-Government Act of 2002, which authorizes the judiciary to “prescribe reasonable fees”—and which the plaintiffs argue should limit the government to charge users “only to the extent necessary” to make the information available.”The full article is worth reading because it provides some explanation of fee waivers and, the total amount of revenue generated that supports court automation that is not provided by Congress in budget appropriation. We would also point out that there are additional issues such as costs relating to data privacy, redaction, and management that are not addressed in the article.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
In the previous post in our series we discussed Court Case Management Systems (CCMS) Dashboards that support case process, management information, and decisions. In other words, information that makes our “court process factory” more efficient. And the key purpose of case management is to organize data (and insure completeness) so that it can in turn be converted into information for cases to be adjudicated and decisions rendered.
But what’s next? We think that one part of the answer is to integrate and extend the judicial decision support functionality into the CCMS itself. We explain below…