Litigation Showcase

Courts Experiment with Trial Technology

Money and politics are difficult hurdles as courts try to upgrade.

By Tom O'Connor

COURTS SPEND in excess of $500 million annually on information technology, but -- at least according to common wisdom-- are substantially behind law firms in the adoption of legal technology.

Why? Because courts are not really business enterprises and are not run according to many of the standard business practices of law firms or software companies. And they don't have enough money.

The "business" of a court is to settle disputes between parties in a fair and impartial manner. They do not make a profit from this "business" and thus are dependent for operating expenses on an outside source -- which is typically a political body with its own agenda. As a result courts, traditionally, have not been adept at doing productivity studies, Return-on-Investment analyses, or other typical business financial evaluations.

Money's tight. And the majority of what money they receive from their funding sources goes to purchasing hardware and software, training users and simply supporting their day-to-day operations.

To make matters worse, there are few, if any, national standards for courtroom technology. (Compare that to typical litigation software or time-and-billing programs in law firms, which easily integrate with other programs.)

The result is a technological "Balkanization" of courts around the country, which causes costly and time consuming duplication of efforts for both court officials and attorneys and their clients. As one court administrator recently said at a conference on settting XML standards, "We just don't get the bang for our bucks in technology the way that law firms do."

Budget Problems

The biggest problem, of course, is money. Courts face increasing caseloads, yet decreasing budget appropriations. In the most recent federal budget proposals, for instance, the Senate proposed an appropriation $280 million below the amount requested by chief Justice Rehnquist. The House came in $180 million short. Despite the fact that the reduction below the request by the Chief Justice is only 2/10 of 1 percent of all proposed spending for 2000, this is the second year in a row the federal courts have not been funded at a level most observers feel is an absolute minimum amount.

But this problem is not limited to just the federal courts. In Washington state, Chief Justice Richard Guy recently wrote, "The civil justice system in Washington is in danger of becoming extinct." (Law & Politics, Aug/Sept 1999). With limited financial resources, an increasing criminal case load and legislative mandates for determinative sentencing in drug and driving under the influence cases, the judicial system is being overwhelmed with criminal cases. In the words of Judge Guy, "[T]he result is an inability on a part of the courts to adequately serve all the civil litigants."

(You may question how criminal caseloads are on the rise when both the FBI and state police agencies report that the national crime rate is actually going down. Dan Satterburg, the chief deputy prosecutor for King County Wash., which includes the city of Seattle, explains that anomaly by theorizing that police departments are handling fewer reported crimes than ever and are, therefore, able to devote more time to handling and solving those crimes. (Pierce County News Tribune, 8/9/99). Thus, despite four years of steadily declining reported crimes, the number of criminal cases filed in King County is at an all-time high.)

The Good News

The good news is that courts are aware that technology may be the answer to some of their problems. "The use of technology can considerably reduce the cost while increasing the efficiency of the civil justice system," says Judge Guy.

Projects such as The Courtroom of the Future at the University of Arizona, Courtroom 21 at William & Mary and the new high tech training courtroom at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nev., are being used to train judges and court administrators from different jurisdictions on standardized technology techniques. The NCSC reports that its "Technology Information Service" Web site's most popular areas are e-filing, public access and case management software. (Info: tis@ncsc.dni.us)

And while it's a slow road, traffic is moving. Research indicates that approximately 80 percent of the U.S. population will be served by a court with some means of electronic file system by the end of 2000, compared to only 20 percent today. That figure presages a dramatic amount of technological implementation in the coming year. But as Roger Winters, the electronic court records manager for King County, is fond of saying, "The vision is not the plan."

Indeed, much planning remains to be done in order to insure that the technology being implemented is used in an effective manner. The National Center for State Courts is releasing an action plan to handle problems identified a recent poll, which found that while about 75 percent of those surveyed reported confidence in the courts, many questioned access and cost, and stated that they felt that the courts were out of touch with their communities.

The National Judicial College recently held a Symposium on the future of judicial education to help judges in each state develop a strategy for dealing with coming changes. Individual states are working on development plans and the Joint Technology Committee of the National Association of Court Managers, as well as the Conference of State Court Administrators are working on an ambitious three year plan to develop and promulgate national standards in areas such as court case management systems, document delivery and internal training.

2000 promises to be an exciting year for the courts as they move forward in the implementation of all the technology discussed above. As Judge Guy has said: "Technology is the most promising innovative and far-reaching of all avenues for streamlining the civil litigation process."

We are beginning to see the fulfillment of that promise as courts across the country finally begin to work together and tell vendors exactly what they need from hardware and software products to best perform their core function of dispensing fair and impartial justice.

Tom O'Connor is the court relations consultant at Courtlink, based in Bellevue, Wash.