NIEM 3.0 Alpha 2 Draft Open Public Review Announced

The National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) working groups have announced a public review of their latest draft standard.

This and That in Court Tech – January 2013

Here are some things that recently happened in court technology and related areas.

NIEM 3.0 “Coming Soon” Website Announced

The National Information Exchange Model program has posted a new website for practitioners to track the progress of the new version 3.0 development.

An Electronic Signature Maxim

By: Vojtěch Kment, http://www.linkedin.com/in/vojtechkment

Summary:  An E-signature Deployment Maxim: 1. Replaces the handwritten signature; 2. Legally permissible; 3. Evidence of intent; 4. False identification avoided/minimized; 5. Easy to use, affordable and widely compatible.

(Maxim: A brief expression of a general truth, principle, or rule of conduct http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Maxim )

The Need for Court E-Forms Identification (Meta-Data) Standards - Part 1

There is a fundamental problem with the way that electronic court forms have been implemented.  This series discusses some ideas to address the current shortcomings.

Child Welfare Data Privacy Webinar Offered

The National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology will be hosting a free, open webinar on April 12, 2012 to discuss the privacy aspects of data exchange for juvenile data.

Pennsylvania Issues One Millionth E-Citation

A press release from the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts and the Pennsylvania State Police on March 14, 2012:

One Million State Police Traffic Citations Issued Electronically
Supreme Court, PA State Police E-filing Initiative Improves Safety, Court Efficiency

Eight Rules of E-Filing: Conclusion

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”

Eight Rules of E-Filing: Rule #7

E-Filing Should Support Government to Court Communications

The vast majority of E-filing systems focus upon civil case matters.  While there are many reasons I believe that besides vendor funding, this focus greatly reduces project political risk to the courts.  Judges have more discretion in managing civil cases and the parties can agree to work together to support new systems and procedures for everyone’s benefit.  In fact, this is how court E-filing started in 1990 in the Delaware Chancery Court.

But criminal and other cases involving human services and other government departments and programs are a different animal for E-filing.  In criminal cases the attorneys are continually looking for procedural mistakes and other errors in order dismiss cases and free or reduce the penalties for their clients.  In other words, the attorneys truly embrace their 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.

Eight Rules of E-Filing: Rule #2

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.

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

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:

1. be raw data;
2. in an open standard format that allows the public to search, extract, organize, and analyze the information;
3. accessible from the the agency's Internet website home page under a uniform resource locator suffix "data"; and
4. 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:

1. can be used to increase state agency accountability and responsiveness
2. improve public knowledge of the agency and its operations
3. further the core mission of the agency
4. create economic opportunity
5. 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":

1. determines that, using existing resources, the agency can post the data set on the Internet website at no additional cost to the state; or
   
2. 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
3. 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.

"E is Okay"

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.