GDPR Guidance and How to Market Your Court Website

The COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee has recently released two new resource bulletins.  Details below…

COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee Sets Priorities

In the recent committee meeting held in Atlanta, Georgia on July 22-23, 2018 the following priorities for 2018/2019 were set by the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee.  The subjects are:

This and That in Court Tech – July 2018

Animal rescue at Rancho Del Sueno

We share news from California, a private court records access company, a huge report of technology projects from the Ohio state courts, and a commentary regarding a court in Michigan losing 3.6 million paper documents.

This and That in Court Technology, May 2018

https://goo.gl/9BrHdZ

This month we learn about PatentBot, the new Oasis-Open LegalRuleML specification, some interesting thoughts on how to better replicate litigation service systems, Microsoft Research podcasts and free E-books, Oracle’s chatbot demonstration system, Notepad ++, and some graduation gift ideas.

US Federal Court PACER Fees Litigation Decision Discussed

US District Court - Great Falls, Montana

We haven’t commented on the news from late March 2018 on the decision regarding the US Federal Court’s use of the fees collected for their PACER public records access systems.  We share some of our thoughts below.

Courts Implement New Online Search Systems

We learned this week about two new search systems being implemented by the state courts in Arkansas and Illinois.  More below…

A New NCSC Report on Automated Redaction

https://www.shareicon.net/ 

In a follow-up to the July paper on “Best Practices for Court Privacy Policy Formulation”, the NCSC with the support of The State Justice Institute, the new paper, "Automated Redaction Proof of Concept Report" addresses the need for policies and technology for redaction of protected information. 


More below…

NCSC Releases New Report on Court Privacy Policy

A State Justice Institute supported report, “Best Practices for Court Privacy Policy Formulation” authored by three of our NCSC colleagues, Tom Clarke, Jannet Lewis and Di Graski has just been released.  The report begins:

"As state and local courts progressively convert their business processes from paper to electronic formats, policies around remote electronic access to court case information by the public become ever more important.  COSCA last addressed this issue comprehensively in 2002 with a report authored by Martha Steketee and Alan Carlson that proposed a model policy for public access.  At that time, few courts had implemented electronic filing, so the model policy addressed both manual and electronic access.  In the fifteen years since then, courts have learned a lot about living in an electronic world and providing remote access to their case data and documents.  Consequently, there is a need to update what we know about this topic and revise the model policy."

August 31, 2017 revision -- click here to access the updated paper. 

Courts Could Help to Protect Drivers from Traffic Ticket Phishing E-mail

CyberheistNews posted an article about “the NY State Department of Motor Vehicles warning about a phishing scam where New York drivers are being targeted, stating they have 48 hours to pay a fine or have their driver's license revoked.” In this post, we share some ideas that courts may consider to help to reduce or eliminate this problem.

DC Courts Compile Report on Remote Public Access to Electronic Court Records

Prepared by the Remote Access to Court Electronic Records (RACER) Committee of the Council for Court Excellence, and assisted by the National Center for State Courts, with funding by the State Justice Institute, the committee released their report in April 2017 on public access to electronic court records.

Tech Notes – April, 2017

CourtHack 2017 Champions

News about CourtHack 2017, a podcast on law enforcement body-worn cameras and the courts, and more from Alabama on court records policy.

Handwritten Signatures - "Now a Punchline" - Part 4

There is a new example in our continuing series on traditional handwritten signatures being used to fake court documents has surfaced.  More below.

This and That in Court Technology – January, 2017

Just like the National Football League (USA style pictured here), there is a lot of news regarding digital transformation.  The edition has notes on an American Bar Association report on E-Briefing, Nebraska appellate court E-filing, a Robot Lawyer application for parking tickets, a RAND corporation report on “Future Proofing” justice, commentary on potentially opening California legal publication, and a couple of technologies that need to be sent to the trash bin.

Online Identity, Verified?

http://www.berkeleyside.com/img_7570-2/ 

During the fantastic Law and Courts in an Online World conference in Melbourne, Australia the subject of online identity verification came up.  So I looked to see what services are potentially available to E-filing services and courts?

Maryland Courts Release Law Help Mobile App

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.

Lastpass now Free but not Court Documents

A couple of news items to share regarding password managers and access to court documents.

US Federal Courts PACER Fees Litigation

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.

US Federal Judiciary Cites Technology for Efficiency

US Federal Courthouse in Denver

In a press release on July 6, 2016 the US Federal Courts cited multiple court technology initiatives as part of their overall efficiency and cost reduction strategy.

This and That in Court Technology – Early Summer 2016

At the beginning of summer 2016, we share court technology news from the IACA European Regional Conference, Mississippi mobile access to justice app plans, online juror research restriction, Colorado online court information access questions, and a really big new computer monitor.

A Response to Texas Criminal E-Filing Mandate Concerns

I received a link to an article in Texas Lawyer from our friend, new PhD Bill Raftery at Gavel to Gavel regarding a public hearing held on April 5, 2016 at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regarding mandatory criminal case E-filing.  The article notes that the court has already made filing mandatory for their cases.  But they heard additional concerns that I will comment on: