AAERT Releases New Analysis Report on Digital Court Recording

Via press release - a new paper,  Analysis and Advantages of Digital Court Reporting and Recording in the Courts, Deposition, and Administrative Hearings Markets in Wilmington, Delaware was issued on November 28, 2016

This and That in Court Technology – December, 2016

In this month's edition, we have e-Courts information; some news items and announcements from Microsoft; Alameda County, California CMS problems; a new way to annotate legal briefs; and some holiday gift guides for last minute shopping.

---

Is it Time to Rename CMS?

The term “Case Management Systems” has been appropriated for use in a much wider range of software applications such as insurance and financial organizations.  Is it time to rename and re-brand our main court automation systems?  Maybe?

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?

My Favorite Browser Extensions

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.

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.

This and That in Court Technology – October, 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.

Law Firms as an Electronic Filing Service Provider

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.

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.