North Carolina Court Technology Said to be Outdated

In a hearing before the recently created North Carolina House Judicial Efficiency and Effective Administration of Justice committee, John W. Smith, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) noted the challenges that the courts are facing.

Handwritten Signatures – Now a Punch Line, Part 2

Another example that judicial signatures cannot be reliably used to verify court orders occurred when Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida Chief Judge, Belvin Perry’s signature was forged on fraudulent court orders resulting in the freeing of two prisoners convicted of murder.

In the AP/USA Today article – “Men who escaped prison with forged papers registered as felons” the judge commented:  “One of the things we have never taken a close look at is the verification of a particular document to make sure it's the real McCoy”

We offered some potential solutions in our earlier “Punch Line” article.

An Important Report on the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants Released

A significant report has been created and shared by Dr. Julie Macfarlane at the University of Windsor, Canada with results that all courts should consider.  Her report is summarized by our good friend, Rob Richards of the Legal Informatics Blog.

Court Case Management Systems 2012 Part 2: Does it help you do your work?

The second in a series of articles on court case management systems.

Calculating an E-Court Return on Investment (ROI)

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”.

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

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.

Courts Have Always Charged Fees

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.

US Federal Courts Provide Guidance on Juror Smart Phone Use

On January 24th, the US Federal Courts Judicial Comittee on Court Administration and Case Management for the US District Courts issued instructions to be provided to jurors regarding the use of cell phones and computers during their service. 
A Network World article posted on February 2, 2010 titled - Courts move to ban juror use of Blackberry, iPhone, Twitter and Facebook provides a summary of this action. 
The court instructions can be downloaded in PDF at: http://www.uscourts.gov/newsroom/2010/DIR10-018.pdf

COSCA Whitepaper on Digital Recording

The Conference of State Court Administrators adopted the white paper titled - Digital Recording: Changing Times for Making the Record at their December, 2009 meeting.  The paper notes challenges to the current method listing the Decline in Court Reporter Resources and Efficient, Timely Transcript Production and Access to the Record.  The also note opportunities of Digital Recording including the Fundamentals of the technology, access, administrative control, integration of digital recordings with CMS and potential for cost savings.

State Legislatures Budget Map

The National Conference of State Legislatures has posted an excellent interactive map of the budget gap experiences as a result of the economic downturn on the various states.  They have also linked a web page on the issue.

Court Programs Recognized

In May, 2007 the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation recently recognized two court programs as part of their innovation in government awards program. The first program was the Electronic Court Records project in King County Superior Court, Washington. The Ash Institutes website stated that the "(e)lectronic Court Records gives court case file users electronic access. Scanning and e-filing have eliminated paper files, resulting in faster processing, desktop access to documents and better security." The second program recognized was the Juvenile Justice Continuum of Services and Graduated Sanctions program in the 6th Judicial District of New Mexico. The website stated that "(t)he Juvenile Justice Continuum of Services and Graduated Sanctions is composed of an integrated service network of juvenile programs, which have recorded a 70% decline in delinquent offenses since its inception.

ABA Responds to the Aftermath of Katrina

From our friend Larry Smith at the American Bar Association:

The American Bar Association is coordinating with FEMA to provide resources, and will serve as a clearinghouse for lawyers and those in the legal profession who are willing to volunteer, either generally or specifically for law firm clients and for the firms themselves. This week, we (the ABA Law Practice Management Section and others) are also gathering resources that we have previously published on practice interruption/continuation and disaster recovery for the benefit of those practices that cannot continue. These resources will be published both at the LPM and ABA-wide pages, linked through the ABA Web site at www.abanet.org. We continue to field inquiries on these topics. If any of you have materials that you believe are appropriate for this effort, we encourage you to share them.

Thanks,
Larry C. Smith, Director
Law Practice Management Section
American Bar Association
E-mail: SmithL@staff.abanet.org
Phone: 312-988-5661
Web: www.lawpractice.org