McMillan on The Need for Court E-Forms Identification (Metadata) Standards

James E. McMillan of the National Center for State Courts has posted The Need for Court E-Forms Identification (Meta-Data) Standards, Court Technology Bulletin, 18 April 2012.

In this post, Mr. McMillan discusses the need for metadata standards for identifiers for electronic forms used in judicial information systems. He describes the problem as follows:

The problem is simply the identification of courts E-forms. In a physical environment it is easy to recognize the form from its title or presentation format. But in the electronic world, the problems are threefold. First, there is a need for CMS and E-filing systems to be able to easily recognize an E-form so that it can be routed (via work flow) to the proper department or person in the court. Second, and more important, the submitted forms ARE in many instances the contents of the case file and should therefore be viewed both technically and operationally as part of the CMS database. And third, because documents and forms are used by non-court organizations and need to provide support for some of their needs.

In the post, Mr. McMillan gives examples of two U.S. state court systems — Florida and West Virginia — that have implemented standard identifiers for digital court forms. Mr. McMillan writes that in a subsequent post, he will “discuss the benefits to the courts and court information users from consistent E-forms identification meta-data.”

For more information, please see the complete post.

McMillan on E-Filing Systems for Self-Represented Litigants

James E. McMillan of the National Center for State Courts has posted E-Filing Must Support the Self-Represented, Court Technology Bulletin, 8 September 2011.

This is the latest post in Mr. McMillan’s series, Eight Rules of E-Filing.

In this post, Mr. McMillan argues that e-filing systems implemented by courts in which large numbers of self-represented litigants appear must be designed for use by those litigants. Mr. McMillan then describes a number of court technologies that that enable self-represented litigants to file litigation papers online.

For more information, please see the complete post.

McMillan: Eight Rules of E-Filing

James E. McMillan of the National Center for State Courts has begun a new series of posts on court e-filing systems, entitled Eight Rules of E-Filing, at Court Technology Bulletin.

Mr. McMillan explains that in many U.S. court systems, “physical case files” continue to play a prominent role; and where document filing has been automated, it is often not integrated with other court information systems, such as those for “registry/docket (historical event record), participants, and scheduling /task control.”

In this series of posts, Mr. McMillan explains the benefits of integrating “[e]-filing, document, and case management functionality,” and offers best practices for e-filing systems.

McMillan on Trust and Court E-Filing Systems

James E. McMillan of the National Center for State Courts has published two new posts about judicial e-filing systems:

• Trust and E-Filing, Court Technology Bulletin, 7 May 2011;
• E-Filing / E-Reader Notes, Court Technology Bulletin, 14 May 2011.

Mr. McMillan’s post, E-Filing / E-Reader Notes, cites a recent article on e-briefs in Texas state appellate courts, by Don Cruse, Esq.

Call for Papers: Court Technology Conference CTC 2011

A call for ideas and participation — with submission deadline of 15 February 2011 — has been issued for CTC 2011: The National Center for State Courts’ Court Technology Conference 2011, to be held 4-6 October 2011, in Long Beach, California, USA.

According to the call:

NCSC invites practitioners, scholars and the private sector to participate in the educational programs at the Court Technology Conference 2011. The focus as always is on innovative implementations of technologies to all aspects of court business. There is an emphasis on how technologies transform all levels of courts, all sizes of courts, all types of cases, and the work by members of the court and constituent communities.

For more information, please see the call.

HT James E. McMillan.

Coursen & McMillan on A Framework for Logical Data Models in Courts

Derek Coursen of Public Health Solutions and James E. McMillan of the National Center for State Courts, have published A Framework for Logical Data Models in Courts, Data Administration Newsletter, v. 14, no. 2 (December 1, 2010). Here is the abstract:

Success in implementing a court automation system depends on developing a high-quality logical data model. Certain patterns regarding representation of data on actors in the judicial process, cases, component matters (charges and civil claims), and events and tasks are generically applicable to any court situation. These patterns offer a framework for software development teams and non-technical stakeholders to communicate more effectively about the implications of key data modeling decisions in courts.

Here are excerpts from the introduction:

There has so far been little work on specific issues around logical data models for court automation systems… This article aims to fill that gap by proposing data model patterns that work well in judicial environments in general. The authors arrived at these patterns in the following way: In January 2005, after several years of discussing the idea of universal court data model patterns, Jim McMillan was leading the development of a new court automation system for Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) and invited Derek Coursen to develop a model that could serve both BiH and any other jurisdiction. Working with Bosnian court officials and data managers, the authors spent a week white-boarding a model. The sessions followed a set of rules that are heterodox by the standards of most software development projects: (1) refer when possible to published data model patterns; (2) focus on entities, relationships and attributes, discussing work processes only insofar as they directly affect those data model components; (3) focus on the BiH courts first but only as a springboard to broader generalizations; (4) focus on the current BiH reality first but only as a springboard to discussing potential needs for flexibility; (5) support eventual physical implementation by seeking a level of generalization that is a happy medium between inflexible specificity and unwieldy theory….

…This article presents the major patterns and decision points that informed the model. It is intended to offer a set of considerations that will help software development teams and non-technical stakeholders communicate more effectively about the implications of key data modeling decisions in courts. While the areas outlined herein do not constitute a complete data model, they address the most important concerns regarding the four most central regions of any court data model: actors in the judicial process; cases; component matters (charges and civil claims); and events and tasks….

McMillan on Electronic Documents: Benefits & Potential Pitfalls

James McMillan of the National Center for State Courts has published Electronic Documents: Benefits and Potential Pitfalls, in Future Trends in State Courts 2010, p. 180-184.

The article discusses the costs and benefits of “paper-on-demand” (POD) electronic document management systems for courts; proprietary versus open standards; word processing formats; PDF; other image-based formats; XML; and NIEM, the National Information Exchange Model, an important XML interchange standard for U.S. government entities.

Here is a summary:

The severe budget cutbacks generated by the recession have been a driving incentive for courts to explore the merits of converting to a “paper-on-demand” (POD) electronic environment. For example, an ROI (return on investment) study in Manatee County, Florida, revealed a cost saving of almost $1,000,000 based on e-filing their 2,321,252 documents per year (Shore, Singer, and Pettijohn, 2009).

In POD courts, documents are e-filed to the court or scanned into the system upon receipt. This electronically stored document is accepted as the original, while the paper documents can be returned to the filer. In addition, multiple users can view documents from their workstations simultaneously. This desirable working environment is being sought by courts throughout the country. King County (Washington), Oregon, Missouri, Colorado, and Orange County (California) have been trendsetters in POD efforts, while large projects are underway in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Alabama, just to name a few. [...]

Courts must be careful in their electronic document decisions. Some vendors may try to lock them into proprietary file formats to preserve their application and licensing revenue. Courts should attempt to leverage standards-based electronic file formats when possible.

Not all court users will be comfortable or proficient with certain electronic document formats. Some formats may have the buy in from the bench or the bar, but many may not be easily or readily available to those in court without lawyers, or may require more firsthand support than the courts or vendors are prepared to provide. Take into account these access considerations before settling into a particular format/solution.

The POD court is an ideal worth striving for; however, there is still more work to be done so that the word-processing applications can support the needs of the justice system. It is possible to create NIEM-compliant justice-document applications today with common word-processing tools and some additional programming. Therefore, courts should be selective in these efforts due to the cost of development. And, it is hoped, that in the near future software tools will be available that are integrated into our common applications.