Iterative Implementation

In recent years I have become less and less convinced that courts have the ability to foresee all of the process/workflow, document, and data sharing BEFORE they install a new case or document management system.  These new systems have substantially more capabilities and flexibility that is not available in first or second generation case management systems.  The new system brings many more new capabilities and possibilities.  The old thinking about how things should be done in general does not apply and the design/specification efforts are wasted.

Therefore in recent years I have often advocated an “iterative approach” that has a new system first installed in the court with base/default capabilities.   THEN, after experiencing the new system environment, the court adjusts both the system workflows/presentation and their business processes (and ideally organizational structure) to take advantage of the new technical capabilities.  Visually presented, these are the two outside arrows of the Court Technology Framework diagram in action.

The system is therefore chosen based on the tools and potential, and not on how closely it fits the existing or imagined situation.  This in turn means that new court automation system installations are not a 6 month but rather a 12-24 effort.  And budgets and staff resources must be provided to support the effort over that time.

Many of you know and have viewed the wonderful TED Conference presentations that are available online.  One presentation on point is called “Build a tower, build a team” by Tom Wujec. I hope you enjoy it.

Signing Documents on Your iPad?

As many of you know, Apple iPads are already widely adopted by the judicial community.  One issue/desire that has arisen is the ability for judges to "sign" documents.  But unfortunately the late Steve Jobs rejected the idea that a "pen interface" was needed as standard equipment in opposition to the Tablet systems previously released by Microsoft.

Maryland Chooses Statewide CMS & E-Filing Vendor

In a press release on November 3, 2011, it was announced that the State of Maryland Judiciary has selected Tyler Technologies' "Odyssey® court management system as the single, integrated environment for managing and reporting court information".

According to the announcement:

"The contract between Tyler and the State of Maryland is valued at approximately $45 million, which includes software licensing fees, professional services and a multi-year maintenance agreement. The MDEC Project will use several Odyssey modules, including Case Manager, Enterprise Content Management, Financial Management and e-Filing.

Maryland’s search for a judicial technology partner was anchored by three strategic goals: 1) enhance public safety by more rapidly sharing high-quality data in support of better decision-making; 2) increase access to the courts by providing an easy-to-use system that’s available anywhere, anytime; and 3) support the fair and efficient administration of justice by using a system that improves overall court operations, including better scheduling, reduced delays and better-informed decisions."

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”

This and That - October, 2011

CTC-2011 

The conference was a great success again this year.  For education session presentations and articles go to: http://www.ctc2011.org/Attendees/Program-at-a-glance.aspx and then click on the session name.

Registration Still Open for Privacy and Public Access Conference

Our partner, the Center for Legal and Court Technology has openings for the 8th Conference on Privacy and Public Access to Court Records to be held in Williamsburg, Virginia from November 3-4, 2011.  For more see the conference website at: http://www.privacy.legaltechcenter.net/aspx/Conferences.aspx

Florida Senate: Make non-efilers in courts pay a 3.5% surcharge?

Cross-posted at Gavel to Gavel blog

 I mentioned last week that the Florida Senate was going to meet tomorrow (October 18) and that the agenda included an item entitled

Presentations on issues related to electronic filing of court documents

I came across a (possibly) related piece of legislation: SB 410 of 2012. The bill contains two provisions:

(1) A litigant who is required to electronically file a court or other legal document in a court of this state, in the Division of Administrative Hearings, or in the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims shall pay a surcharge in addition to any other cost incurred if the litigant files a paper document instead of electronically filing the document. The surcharge shall equal 3.5 percent of the cost of filing the document electronically. (2) This section does not apply to a litigant who is indigent as determined by s. 27.52, Florida Statutes.

The obvious question is "who is required to electronically file a court or other legal document"? SB 170 of 2011, signed into law in June, requires prosecutors and public defenders to e-file documents with the clerk of court and report back on March 1, 2012 on the implementation of the program to the legislature (click here for prior posts). A 2009 statute (SB 1718) required the clerks of court to implement an electronic filing process by March 1, 2010. Live coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee e-filing presentation can be found here.

Eight Rules of E-filing: Rule #8

Rule Number 8:  E-filing and “Paper on Demand”.  

E-filing (and more specifically electronic documents) provide flexibility in the ability for judges and staff to consume content.  A widely held view (see note 1 below) is that if the judge is better served by printing documents; they should be allowed to print the documents that are needed for the work at hand.  But when done working with those documents they are recycled and/or shredded.  They aren’t maintained as the official record.

CTC-2011 - What Did You See? (Updated -11/10/11)

Last week's Court Technology Conference (the 12th since 1984) was a gathering of court technology professionals, enthusiasts, and the curious in Long Beach, California.  Many of the conference presentations have already been made available at:

http://www.ctc2011.org/Attendees/Program-at-a-glance.aspx 
(Click on the session title to open a window with links to the presentation(s) if available).

I for one very much enjoyed Korean Judge Hoshin Won's presentation on tablet and surface computing including a tour of their e-Courts Experience Center.  A picture of a virtual courtroom concept demonstrating touch-screen and "tele-presence" technology in their e-Courts Experience Center is shown above.

A video of the e-Court Experience Hall and presentations are available at:

http://www.ctc2011.org/Attendees/CLCT-program.aspx

What did you see that you would like the CTB readers to know about?  We invite you to share your experiences by posting a comment below.

CTC-2011 Daily Update

For up-to-date information as to what is happening in Long Beach, California go to CTC Daily Update web page at: http://icmelearning.com/ctc/mailer/daily-update.html

Hope to say hi to many of you this week!

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.