Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt (Ret.) September 2001

Usually the initial reaction to electronic filing of court documents is positive – “of course we should start an electronic filing project – it is the Information Age after allâ€. But then enthusiasm turns to caution when the details are considered. The details often reveal so many potential barriers that the process seems overwhelming and often early momentum turns to an agonizingly slow process. However, as the pioneer’s venture into the unknown, barriers are overcome, lessons are learned, and progress occurs. As new courts are added to those that accept electronically filed pleadings over the Internet some patterns have developed which are demonstrating that the barriers to electronic filing can be successfully overcome. Here is how the common barriers have been overcome in some courts.
RESISTENCE TO CHANGE
The number one barrier is resistance to change. Changing the way we do things is at the very least an uncomfortable topic. It is uncomfortable and threatening largely due to the unknown. Change, however,is also the engine that allows for better performance for less money — it permits doing more with less. How important are the dynamics of change to a successful technology? Unless a court has the tools and equipment to successfully manage change, successful electronic filing will be difficult to obtain.
It is important to recognize that there is a dynamic known as change. Change enables the transition from paper to technology. This dynamic, the dynamic of change, accounts for change-related stress, resistance to change and performance response to change. Whenever new technology is introduced into the workplace, it should be expected that there would be an initial downturn in attitudes and productivity. The key is to minimize the downturns. This is accomplished through leadership, sponsorship and involving the stakeholders in the process of designing and implementing the change. It is essential to change the environment from resistance to commitment.

The number one ingredient for managing change is Judicial Leadership. If a Judge becomes a champion of change the rest of the courthouse community and the bar association will follow. Let’s examine some examples of Judicial Champions of Change who have motivated and led successful electronic filing projects.
Jefferson County, Texas. In 1995 Judge Jim Mehaffy, became one of the first state court trial judges to accept pleadings electronically – a bold act of leadership in 1995. Judge Mehaffy describes the experience “ like the fellow who swallowed the first oysterâ€.
Montgomery County, Texas. Judge Fred Edwards became the first judge to mandate electronic filing for the court’s entire docket. This was an act, which met with much resistance from the bar, but has proved to be efficient not only for the bar but also the court. Judge Edwards became a leader by being willing to take risk to solve problems and by being proactive with the bar. Now other judges in Montgomery County are following the example.
Fulton County (Atlanta), Georgia. Judge Henry Newkirk, of the State Court, was faced with an insurmountable asbestos docket and enlisted the input of the bar, which agreed to an electronic filing project. He received complete support from Chief Judge Albert Thompson and technology committee Chair, Judge Gino Brogdon. Because of the success of the project Superior Court Judge Philip Etheredge soon joined him
San Diego, California. Judge Ronald Prager changed the way the voluminous paper in tobacco cases was overwhelming the bar and clerk by mandating electronic filing.
San Francisco, California. Judge Stuart Pollack sought a better way to deal with the overwhelming paper from complex litigation and became an advocate of electronic filing by adopting a project in 1999.
Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court saw electronic filing as a leadership issue and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and Justice Alex Martinez established the first statewide electronic filing project. The Judicial conference supported the Supreme Court through its strong technology committee, led by Judge William West.
Washington, D.C. Judge Herbert Dixon, Superior Court, led the way aided by Chief Judge Rufus King and Judge Brooke Hedge, who chairs the Technology Committee. Judge Dixon in particular eased the nervousness of clerks and lawyers by assuring them that they would have input in the project. Judge Dixon said, “We believe e-filing will become a normal, typical and regular part of litigation in the near future. I firmly believe there will be e-filing on a substantial basis in future years.”
Duval County (Jacksonville), Florida. Chief Judge Donald Moran became the first Judge to order electronic filing in Florida. Being the first required a willingness to take risk, but the acting on the conviction that there had to be a better way.
Baltimore, Maryland, Chief Administrative Judge Ellen Heller led the way and was aided by Judge William Quarles and Judge Richard Rombro. Judge Heller said, “Now, we will be able to put order in the voluminous paper associated with the filings. There is too much paper associated with the law, and this is the first step in bringing that under control.” The manual filing of cases is “antiquated, absurd and an anachronism”, according to Judge Heller.

RESOLVE is the one common characteristic of these champions of change. Each Judge knew there would be obstacles to overcome yet they faced a broken way of doing business in their court, which needed to be dramatically improved for the publics benefit.

SIGNATURES

“How will the court authenticate a pleading?â€, the clerks, court administrators and lawyers cried. While it is impossible to design a paper filing system or an electronic filing system that will be 100% effective in preventing fraud, both the paper process and the electronic process of filing court pleadings provide reasonable assurance of accuracy and authenticity. Well-identified methodology of ascertaining fraud exists. The many courts that have conducted electronic filing provide substantial evidence that the authenticity of the identity of the creator and signer of an electronically filed document exceed those in the paper process.

CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF RECORDS

Does the Clerk lose care custody and control of electronic records? Meeting Constitutional and legal requirements is a legitimate issue when court managers and clerks consider an electronic filing project. Many courts are successfully meeting record keeping requirements by maintaining multiple and redundant electronic copies of the pleadings. One file is kept on the premises of the court as an archival file while another copy is maintained in a commercially superior fashion to allow the court, the parties and the public have fast, efficient and secure access to a “use†copy. Colorado has demonstrated to the legal community that technology was an asset in addressing the issue of record keeping.

MANDATORY V. PERMISSIVE

If all filings are not electronic how does the clerk keep a complete file? Does the clerk have to maintain a paper file and an electronic file? These issues can seem overwhelming at first, however, there are several approaches evolving. The obvious solution is for the court to mandate electronic filing- the public being accommodated at public access terminal in the courthouse. This solution seems to have acceptable application to large complex cases as studies are demonstrating that it is less expensive to file electronically then in paper. Another solution is to integrate an imaging system with the electronic filing system. While this is an expensive approach it holds out the promise of the best path to an electronic case file. Early experiments, such as the one to begin shortly in Chelean County, Washington are being watched closely.

COST

Technology is expensive and courts traditionally do not have the ability to persuade budget authorities to increase technology expenditures. In order to undertake the development and maintence of an electronic filing project a court needs to purchase software, hardware and pay for project administration and change management. One method, which has helped overcome this obstacle, is the public-private partnership. By employing a public-private partnership the court, has the opportunity to obtain leading edge technology, without the expense of developing and maintaining the technology-typically areas, which are beyond a courts core competency.

CONCLUSION

As more courts experiment with electronic filing the evidence is accumulating that barriers are successfully overcome. The lesson learned is clear-do not wait until all the solutions are known, but start with small projects, which allow for the demonstration of small “chunks of success†Success breeds success.

This article first appeared in e-File Report, Glasser Legal Works, August , 2001

The post Issue 6.6 Overcoming Barriers to Electroninc Filing appeared first on MontyAhalt.com.

Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt (Ret.) July 2001
On May 1, 2001–National Law Day–Washington, D.C.’s Superior Court launched an electronic filing pilot project. The project culminated a six-year effort by the Superior Court, which has one of the highest per capita caseloads in the country, to introduce an e-filing service for its “Civil One Division” cases, aiming to streamline the complex civil litigation that fills that division’s docket. The pilot, which will run for one year, requires that the attorneys in the six hundred or so cases assigned to that court file only electronically. If the pilot is successful, e-filing will be extended to other civil matters.
On June 14, 2001 The Circuit Court for Baltimore City launched an electronic filing project for 20,000+ asbestos cases. This effort also culminated 5 years of planning by the court and the asbestos bar. The pilot will run for 2 years in accordance with an Order signed by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell approving the project pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-307.
Baltimore-Washington Regional Filing
Thus, the Baltimore ¬ Washington region became the first state court regional approach to electronic filing of court documents. Significantly, 75% of the lawyers who file in the Washington, D.C. Superior Court electronic filing cases also file in the Baltimore City Circuit Court electronic filing cases. The same percentage is true for the lawyers who file in the Baltimore City Circuit Court. This means that a lawyer will be filing and accessing the case file the same way in two independent courts in different states ¬ a national first.
The Washington, D.C. Superior Court’s e-filing efforts began in 1995, when the Technology Committee for the Superior Court, headed by Judge Rufus King, who is now chief judge, visited neighboring Prince George’s County, Maryland. The Circuit Court there had initiated the first national electronic filing pilot project in partnership with the National Center for State Courts and Andersen Consulting (now Accenture). The pilot, known as JusticeLink, was the first effort to test the concept of electronic filing. The final report on that pilot is posted online at http://www.ncsc.dni.us/NCSC/TIS/TIS99/electr99/JusticeLink/JUSTCOVER.HTM .
At about the same time, Judge Herbert Dixon, chair of the sub-committee for e-filing for D.C.’s Superior Court, attended a national court technology conference, where he participated in an electronic filing educational program.
The members of the committee began to explore a variety of implementation strategies. The committee decided early on that it required the expertise of an Internet-orientated technology company and that entering into a public ¬ private partnership would enhance the court’s success. The court selected CourtLink, the successor to JusticeLink.see http://www.courtlink.com.
The Baltimore City Circuit Court began discussing the necessity for electronic filing to solve the overwhelming paper problems in asbestos litigation in 1996 under the leadership of Administrative Judge Joseph Kaplan and Judge Edward Angeletti. Current Administrative Judge Ellen Heller and Judge William Quarles followed their efforts. Like Washington, the Baltimore bench saw the Prince George’s court electronic filing pilot as a way to better manage a paper intensive docket and ultimately selected CourtLink, the successor to JusticeLink.
A CourtLink team consisting of Marsha Edwards, Michael Dunn, Jehanne Edwards and Kendall Smith managed both the D.C. Superior Court and Baltimore Circuit Court implementations. The implementation team employed a five-step process:
Rallying the Leadership-Judges Must Lead the Way. Managing change is the most critical element for a successful electronic filing project, and judicial leadership is key to that success. The Superior Court project was led by Chief Judge Rufus King, aided by the dogged persistence of both Judge Herbert Dixon and Judge Brooke Hedge, who chairs the Technology Committee. Judge Dixon in particular eased the nervousness of clerks and lawyers by assuring them that they would have input in the project. Judge Dixon said, “We believe e-filing will become a normal, typical and regular part of litigation in the near future. I firmly believe there will be e-filing on a substantial basis in future years.”
In Baltimore it was Judges Kaplan, Angeletti, Heller and Quarles who led the charge. Judge Heller said, “Now, we will be able to put order in the voluminous paper associated with the filings. There is too much paper associated with the law, and this is the first step in bringing that under control.” The manual filing of cases is “antiquated, absurd and an anachronism”, according to Judge Heller.
Judge Quarles said, “We are happy to see e-filing becoming a reality at Baltimore City Circuit Court, it marks the culmination of a lot of hard work on the part of attorneys, clerk’s office personnel, the vendor and judges. We look forward to the time in the near future when we can demonstrate the benefits of e-filing for a variety of types of litigation. The future is now.”
But, leadership from the bar is equally important. Maryland lawyer John Nagle not only led the way by coordinating the lawyers, but also became an agent of change. John spent countless hours as he eased the skepticism and nervousness of his colleagues and presented the persuasive case for the benefits of change at countless bar association meetings.
Assessing Requirements. The CourtLink team worked with the court to identify potential e-filing cases; evaluate available hardware; identify necessary court personnel and procedures; establish the applicability of local court rules; and to determine the availability of case management data. The team also began a survey of potential e-filing law firms, and assessed the status of the law firm’s hardware and Internet connectivity capacity. The CourtLink team also gathered necessary case data and required product features.
Preparing an Implementation Plan: The court and CourtLink developed a project schedule, which contained a detailed case management order the court proposed using to implement e-filing in selected cases.
Verifying Participation and Training. After identifying all lawyers in the selected cases, CourtLink mailed to each lawyer and firm the Court case management order and detailed instructions outlining the sign-up procedure and training schedule. Finally, CourtLink conducted in-person as well as Web-based, interactive training sessions for the lawyers and firm staff, as well as for judges and court personnel.
Marketing. As public opinion is key to ensure the success of the e-filing pilot, publicizing the project was critical. Before the May 1st Washington launch date, the CourtLink marketing team sent to all participating lawyers three separate communications. Judge Dixon and Craig Husa, senior vice president for Court Services at CourtLink Corp., participated in an eFile panel discussion at the annual District of Columbia Bar Association meeting. Media outreach was conducted to educate the community. In addition, “Ask me about eFile” buttons were created and distributed to the courthouse community. Finally, on May 1st, a roundtable breakfast discussion was held. Roundtable panelists included Chief Judge Rufus King, Judge Herbert Dixon, Judge Brooke Hedge, CourtLink CEO Henry Givray and Technology Consultant James I. Keane.
Before the June 14th Baltimore launch the marketing effort was repeated. Judge Heller participated in an e-file panel discussion at the Maryland Bar Association Annual Meeting in Ocean City, Maryland.
Mandatory v. Permissive Filing
Key to the project is the commitment and determination of the D.C. Superior Court to make electronic filing mandatory across a breadth of cases. If everyone participated in the process, greater experience would be gained, which would lead to the establishment of the best future practices for e-filing litigants.
The issue of mandatory versus permissive use is ever-present in modeling a successful e-filing project. And there are arguments on both sides. However, a compelling factor is getting enough initial activity to make reasonable decisions about the future, and to overcome resistance to change. In fact, almost all pleading rules are mandatory. Quite a few years ago, the rules committees of most courts passed mandatory rules requiring the size of the paper to be reduced from legal to letter size–a major economic impact on lawyers, but a considerable cost saving to courts. The savings which electronic filing can bring to the courts are far greater than the savings brought about by a reduction in the size of paper.
While some may view the cost of electronic filing as an added cost, it is difficult to make a persuasive argument that e filing costs more than paper, ink, postage and delivery service. CourtLink charges 10 cents per page – a minimum of $2 per filing and the same for service. A party can, alternatively, be given a courtesy notification for 50 cents. There are no sign up fees, no monthly minimums or fixed fees. Fees are based on the number and size of transactions. (A transaction is simply defined as filing or serving a package of electronic documents to one or more parties.) The cost of a single 15-page document, served on 20 parties (300 pages, total) would be $32.00
Fee Calculation:
10¢ x 15 pages to court = $ 2.00 min [$1.50]
10¢ x 300 pages to parties = 30.00
Total = $32.00
A wise man once said, “Leadership is getting people to do what they do not want to do. Great Leadership is making people excited about doing what they do not want to do”. The Judicial Leadership of the D.C. Superior Court and the Baltimore City Circuit Court are clearly demonstrating Great Leadership.
Judge Herbert B. Dixon, Jr., Presiding Judge, Civil and Multi Door Divisions, said, “The six hundred initial cases in this electronic filing pilot project will give us tremendous e-filing experience with cases in nearly every stage of litigation ¬ from initial discovery, to final motions, pretrial and trial. We are looking at this opportunity in much the same way that colonial frontiersmen saw their exploratory travels to the West. We know there will be mountains to climb and uncharted territory to conquer ¬ but we know also that e filing is the future, merely awaiting our first steps in that direction. The experience gained during this project will test our initial polices and protocols, cause revisions, and will go a long ways towards our effort to establish the best future practices for e-filing litigants.”
CONSENT COURT
While lawyers may have the opportunity to file pleadings electronically in Baltimore and Washington, what does the bar do while waiting for electronic filing to be adopted in the other courts in Baltimore-Washington region? Recently, CourtLink surveyed its e-filing statistics and some of its national users and discovered that less that 25% of electronic transactions were as a result of electronic filing with the court ¬ the other 75% were created by service and notifications. What has become apparent-surprising some- is that the important value (to the lawyer) of electronic filing is the access to all of the pleadings in a case 24 hours a day 7 days a week-a complete electronic case file. A lawyer no longer needs to spend precious time chasing a paper file. Chasing the paper is an event of the past.

The post Issue 6.5 Electroninc Filing in Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C appeared first on MontyAhalt.com.

 Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt (Ret.) – March 2001

As electronic filing of court documents moves from the pioneers to large-scale adoption, it has become clear the task is much larger than first imagined. The pioneers have experimented with the technology and the market over the last 8 years, and to date less than 1% of court documents are electronically filed. As the pioneers have experimented, several models have evolved:
• Closed systems – the individual filing must comply with the requirements of one provider, regardless if the provider is public or private. Such systems typically require specialized software.
• Internet systems – the individual filing does not require specialized software rather an Internet connected computer equipped with a Web browser.
Further delineation may also be made with respect to who is managing and supporting the process:
• Public systems – those designed, managed, supported and maintained by a governmental agency.
• Private systems – those designed, managed, supported and maintained by a private non-governmental agency. Such systems must ultimately interface with the public systems of the courts
While each approach has its advantages none of these models have proven effective in creating the volume of electronic filing necessary to create the productivity savings, which dramatically improve the administration of justice. Underlying the debate of the most appropriate method to create a significant critical mass is the issue of how a court will be best able to manage and control the workflow of electronically filed documents. Those on the private side argue the Court controls the electronic documents by contract, not possession. Those on the public side argue the Court cannot adequately discharge its governmental function unless the Court has physical control of the electronic documents.
MULTIPLE PROVIDERS-MULTIPLE COURTS
What is needed is an approach, which encourages a variety of models – both public and private – for the electronic filing of court documents. This in part has been the motivation behind Legal XML discussions and projects. To proponents of XML, the use of this technology will deliver open systems to the Justice Community. This notion however ignores three real compelling factors. First; XML is an approach using the Internet for easier data integration between applications and organizations – a common language that helps to define and resolve differences among dissimilar data structures. That said, XML is not an application that can help courts receive, process, interact with, manage and ultimately transfer and integrate the incoming data to its backend systems. Rather XML is simply a methodology to describe data in a standard, non-application specific manner. Second; XML does not deal with the issues of marketing, education and support in order to drive adoption and motivate the legal community to integrate electronic filing into their existing work and business processes. Third; XML does not answer the question of who pays for and supports the administration of systems that will monitor the electronic transactions from multiple and diverse public and private providers.
Defining a standard for the data contained in a document is an essential first step in formulating an open electronic filing process. However, since there are hundreds (if not thousands) of specialized court systems that house this data, there is a real requirement that each of these systems be modified (or new systems created) to receive the data. The process will only move as quickly as money and programming resources allow for each court system to make the necessary changes. If an entity were to take on the daunting task of creating the necessary specialized software interface required by each court system, then any individual filer, e-filing software vendor or public agency could simply submit the filing in a clearly defined format. Software of this type is known as “middleware”. E-filing middleware presents a standardized input methodology and contains the necessary specialized code to prepare and submit incoming data in a form required by each specialized court case management system.
THE VISION
It is this expertise, which CourtLink Corp. (1) has introduced into the market via its JusticeLink middleware product named eFM. eFM offers the following functionality:
§ Front-end XML transaction connectivity.
The software(Application Interface-API) is written to read and write XML transactions to generic front-end systems. The format is open, (XML Filing Protocol, a.k.a. “XFP”), and is very similar to the LegalXML Court Filing Standard 1.0 (CFS 1.0) (2).
CourtLink is committed to adding support for the CFS 1.0 as soon as practical after its formal approval as a recommended standard. CourtLink’s middleware approach anticipates the need to support multiple versions of multiple standards simultaneously in the future.
§ CMS Back-end XML transaction connectivity.
The transactions required for use in the CMS are supported by XML transactions between eFM and the CMS. CourtLink refers to this as a “CMS Adapter”. The only released adapter as of 10/31/2000 is for SCT Courts version 3.1. (3)
§ DMS/IMS Back-end XML transaction connectivity.
eFM supports an integrated DMS interface to FileNET and OTG image management systems, allowing for the documents transmitted to eFM to be written to the DMS.
§ Court Clerk functionality.
In order to file at any specific eFM-enabled court, a user must be ‘registered’ with the court. This is accomplished via a ‘registration’ XML transaction that can be generated by the eFILE provider. EFM supports multiple eFILE providers simultaneously, and a filer (attorney) may use more than one eFILE provider with the same court, if desired. Additionally all ‘submissions’ are available to the clerks for review, (and appropriate changes), before docketing and commitment to the DMS. eFM provides a robust set of capabilities to assist the clerk with processing filings in a fast, accurate fashion.
§ Automated Electronic Receipt/Face sheet
An electronic face sheet is automatically prepared by eFM and pre-pended to the filing. A copy is also returned as part of the XML receipt to the electronic filing system. All filings (original and subsequent) are manipulated by the clerk in eFM. All acceptance, rejection, changing of data, adding parties, fee control, document hierarchy manipulation, etc., is accomplished through the eFM provided web interface.
CourtLink’s eFM solution accepts filings from multiple e-filing providers and contains the necessary procedures to integrate with any court case management system, once the appropriate adapter has been created (4)
. A court using this approach will be able to accept e-filings in accordance with it’s own local protocol, from multiple private providers, such as CourtLink, Westfile, and any other provider. This approach allows the Court to attract the greatest number of electronic documents. The court is free to elect to physically control and manage its electronic documents or to contract with a service provider to perform this function for the court. Thus providing for the greatest possible number of users – allows for the application of the highest common denominator rather than the lowest common denominator.
THE WISDOM OF OPEN SYSTEMS
Instruction for the wisdom of a policy such as this can be drawn for the experience of opening up the Internet and the consequential explosion in its use. The Internet began as a private government-only network, which served the scientific and educational community under the auspices of the National Science Foundation. At the urging of the business community the National Science Foundation began to open up its network to commercial users and then in 1992 Rep. Rick Boucher (D- VA) introduced legislation declaring the Internet open to public competition. The NSF backbone was retired as a not-for-profit entity and was replaced by system of commercial network access points connected to one another. As the government no longer needed to spend scarce resources supporting the Internet, use of the Internet and subsequently the World Wide Web, has grown exponentially. This should be a valuable and instructive lesson for courts desiring to dramatically increase public access and create vast productivity and efficiency gains in the administration of justice.

1 See http://www.courtlink.com

2 LegalXML donated significant parts of the XFP protocol to the public domain for use. These pre-date the LegalXML v1.0 proposed standard.

3 EFM Adapter for SCT Courts 4.0 is scheduled to be released in mid-2001. Other adapters are in development, and the adapter “API” will also be published in approximately the same timeframe.
4 CourtLink can also implement eFile with courts that are not ready for integration, and/or where an adapter is not available. The company has a multi-tier service offering that the court can use to “phase in” deep integration.

The post Issue 6.3 A Vision Supporting Multiple Providers of Electronic Filing to Multiple Courts appeared first on MontyAhalt.com.

Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt (Ret.) – February 2001

Last fall (October 2000) the District of Columbia Trial Lawyers Association invited me to speak at their regular monthly meeting as a retired Judge, I was ask to be open and frank in commenting on how trial lawyers could improve their performance in front of a judge and a jury. The theory was that I as a retired Judge would have a greater liberty in speaking the truth undeterred by the notion that a lawyer in the audience might be appearing in front of me the next day. In reflecting on my 17 plus years on the bench — some 750 jury trials and countless motions hearings and court trials — it became obvious that most of the dos and don’ts of persuasion could be summarized in five points which I have titled the Five Commandments of a Trial Lawyer.

Rather then allowing a negative impression to control the thought process, I put the commandments in not only in the negative -Thou Shall Not, but also the affirmative – Thou Shall.
Overriding these five commandments is the principle, rule and law of First Impressions. Most every thing we do in life is affected by this principle. The principle recognizes the importance of our ability to record and remember prior occurrences. This historical memory has an impact on our future actions – for better or worse. For the trial lawyer as for any sales person this can be critical. A Judge or a jury will be affected by their first impressions of a lawyer. It is important to recognize that first impressions do no just begin in the courtroom. They start with the first interaction whether that be, a letter, a pleading, a telephone call, a social event, a parking lot occurrence, an interaction with court staff, or the opening statement. Now, most Judges and for that matter jurors desire to be fair so they naturally try to protect against first impressions being controlling. However when a pattern starts to show itself there is no turning back the powerful implications of this law of human nature.
I. THOU SHALL NOT BE A PRESENTER . . .
. . . THOU SHALL BE A PERSUADER
So how is it that a lawyer becomes a persuader and not just a presenter? How does a lawyer move from the bottom 80 percent of the class to the top 20 percent of the class?
Lawyers regularly come back to chambers after a trial and want to know how they did in their performance. Whether they have won or lost they want their performance critiqued. First, I point out that winning and losing a lawsuit is not a measure of professional skill. Good persuaders cannot overcome bad facts and law. Nor can poor persuaders destroy good facts and law. Moreover, the dynamics of a jury trial often allow a jury to overcompensate for poor lawyering. What trial judge has not been told by a jury – “boy that lawyer was just horrible but we could not hold it against the client.” Often they even add “can we make sure the lawyer doesn’t get paid.”
Second, I tell the inquiring lawyer that to become a top-notch trial lawyer, you have to make it your professional zeal to study the art of persuasion. You need to make it the object of your attention every waking hour of the day. That means you have to read about the art, observe the practice of the art, study the art and practice the art. If you haven’t been to a trial practice weeklong course, you need to put it at the top of your priority list. If your employer will not pay for it, you need to save the money and take a week’s annual leave. If it is essential, a true professional will make it their personal professional priority.
Third, you have to understand the elements of persuasion.
The elements of persuasion were first established 2000 years ago by Aristotle, the father of persuasion. Those elements are: (1) believability; (2) sympathy; and (3) logic. For a more complete treatment of this commandment see VirtualCourthouse Issue 4:6, June 1999 .
II. THOU SHALL NOT VERBALLY FIGHT . . .
. . . THOU SHALL TREAT EVERONE FAIRLY
Key to being a persuasive individual is to be viewed by the decision maker as a fair individual. There is nothing more detracting from the logical thought process as a verbal fistfight. A lawyer who gets in verbal fistfights on frequent occasions simply is not believable to a Judge or Jury. This dynamic may not apply to the occasional battles usually attributed to the frustrations of trial work. It is the frequent pattern that exists with some advocates, which cause a judge to ignore the persuasiveness of the lawyer. Picture yourself being the judge assigned discovery motions. You see this one particular lawyer have a verbal fight every week. Why would you put any weight in what that lawyer had to say about any given point? I must say that it is a constant battle for a Judge to divorce the annoying and distracting tendencies of lawyers from the clients right to have a fair trial, but in the final analysis it is the client who chose the lawyer and is therefore going to be affected by the good traits as well as the bad traits of the individual lawyer.
III. THOU SHALL NOT CITE AN UNREAD CASE . . .
. . . THOU SHALL BE A STUDENT OF THE LAW
The sloppiness with regard to legal research and citations is unbelievably frequent. It is a rare that a lawyer’s word on the law can be trusted, not because of purposeful misleading statements, but simply sloppiness. This is perhaps the most single important attribute of a trial lawyer—believability on the law. Sadly, very few lawyers possess this attribute. Lead a judge astray on the law-on purpose or by neglect – results in never being able to win an important point of law in a real important case. It is as if lawyers have not read the rules of professional conduct.
Rule 3.3. Candor toward the tribunal.

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:.

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;. …..

(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;
And the comments to the rule state:
Misleading legal argument. — Legal argument based on a knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty toward the tribunal. A lawyer is not required to make a disinterested exposition of the law, but must recognize the existence of pertinent legal authorities. Furthermore, as stated in paragraph (a) (3), an advocate has a duty to disclose directly adverse authority in the controlling jurisdiction which has not been disclosed by the opposing party. The underlying concept is that legal argument is a discussion seeking to determine the legal premises properly applicable to the case.
See Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3.
To make sure you do not fall into this category you need to become a student of the law.
IV. THOU SHALL NOT BE SLOPPY . . .
. . . THOU SHALL ALWAYS DRESS PROFESSIONALLY
Ah- the age of the Internet. Casual is better and besides that it is more comfortable. But casual versus formal is only half of the question. A sloppy lawyer is not a persuasive lawyer whether it is the dress, the organization of the pleadings, and the use of the counsel table in the courtroom or the car, which jurors see in the parking lot. Of course part of the problem is generational. I remember my parents complaining about my dress. How could I wear blue jeans on a Saturday night – they wanted to know. I also remember that the top-notch winners always looked like a million dollars and usually were paid a million dollars. My father -in law Blair Smith, a former States Attorney, and a superior trial lawyer, was known for his superior dress and his winning way in the courtroom. He would walk into a room with the Governor and people would want to know who was with Blair. The point is -your dress does make a big difference as well as your general organization. The better you dress the better you perform and the more persuasive you are with jury, judge and client. The more cases you will also win.
V. THOU SHALT NOT TRY TO SELL AN UN-SELLABLE POINT . . .
. . . THOU SHALL PICK ISSUES STRATEGALLY
This last commandment could be the sleeper and the most important. Oh – the agile mind of the lawyer. Give a lawyer enough time and how many issues can he come up with. Sometimes it seems endless. Put three partners in a room and more than the power of three compounds the problem. And then there is the shot-gun approach. Rarely does this approach help achieve a win. In fact the approach usually results in the judge or jury not taking any one issue seriously. A top 20% lawyer will pick the two or three most important issues and keep hammering them home. Even though unpersuasive in the present case the lawyer’s credibility is preserved for the next case.There is an art to making points for the purpose of preserving the rights of your client.The point is that you do not have to spend any time talking about them once they are preserved.
CONCLUSION
I am confident that if you follow these five commandments that you will start achieving greater results in the courtroom and then more clients will be knocking at your door.

The post Issue 6.2 Five Commandments of a Trial Lawyer appeared first on MontyAhalt.com.

Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt (Ret.) – January 2001

As we enter the second or first year-depending on who is counting- of a new Millennium the promise of the Information Age some times runs into a whirlwind of fear. Such is the case with electronic access to court records. Privacy advocates across this nation are turning up the volume of rhetoric and causing policy makers to take a closer look at determining the best public policy for electronic access to court records. In Maryland an Ad Hoc Committee on Court Records of the Administrative Office of Courts has issued a draft policy on dissemination of court records, which dramatically curtails the public’s current electronic access to court records. Some would maintain, however, that the Information Age provides the courts with a historic opportunity to provide the public with more information rather than less information. It seems obvious that openness increases confidence while secretiveness decreases confidence. At the heart of establishing policy for public access to court records is the delicate balance between the public’s right to know of public adjudications and the rights of the involved individuals to keep the public resolution of the dispute private. Currently, in Maryland state courts, there exist three methods by which the public may electronically access court records. The Judicial Information Systems (JIS) allows the public to access, by virtue of a subscription agreement, court records in the Maryland District Courts, the Circuit Courts for Baltimore City, Anne Arundel County, Carroll County, and courts which use the Uniform Court System case management system. A subscriber is permitted to query the courts database by name and case number. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County also maintains a service for access to its database. In both cases governmental units of either the Judicial Branch of Government or the County Government administer the services. In Prince George’s County the public is provided electronic access to the civil and criminal court records of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County through a subscription service administered by CourtLink by virtue of an agreement with the Prince George’s County Government. Additionally the Federal Courts provide electronic public access to criminal and civil court records. With relatively few exceptions these programs have provided thousands of members of the community with electronic access to criminal and civil court records in an effective, inexpensive and efficient fashion. In addition the public has been saved thousands of dollars as the necessary travel to a court has been eliminated. THE LAW Generally the law and sound public policy favor a long-standing tradition of open trials. (1) This right is especially true when it is applied to criminal trials. The Supreme Court has stated, “A trial is a public event. What transpires in a courtroom is public property” (2). It is difficult to logically construct an argument that would make the court records of that “public trial” unavailable to the public unless there was a significant and compelling public policy need to do so. The public’s right to court records is therefore derivative of the “public trial” element of dispute resolution as opposed to state or federal public information statues. As the public deals with substantial issues concerning the public trust and confidence of the courts, it would be a step backwards to curtail rather than advance the public’s access to information concerning an otherwise open public proceeding. Moreover, if the records are available only upon a personal visit to the courthouse, the records are expensive and the public’s access to courts is frustrated. Open access to courts and information contained in court records should be distinguished from “freedom of information” requests and government compilations of data such as criminal “rap sheets”. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Reporters Committee (3) case does not create a privacy interest in the underlying court records of a criminal case. It only protects a privacy interest in a “rap sheet” of an individual when the government is in control of a compilation of information from many underlying sources some of which may have been otherwise public criminal prosecutions. This distinguishing element is evidenced by the fact that the Federal Courts make criminal case records available by electronic access through PACER and private information providers such as CourtLink. As was pointed out in the Reporters Committee case, most states place substantial restrictions on the availability of criminal history summaries (4) ; nonetheless, 85% of the court systems accessible through CourtLink make information available about criminal cases. (5) CLASSES OF COURT RECORDS It is important to focus on what information is electronically available today as opposed to what might be available in future years. A court file contains various levels of information. First the file contains a docket of information. This docket is basically an index of the file, which identifies the parties, type of case and a summary statement of each document. The docket is commonly referred to as the court “record”. Within each file there are also pleadings, which are documents, required to be filed by rule of court delineating a parties written case. Within pleadings there are exhibits, which support a parties case or sometimes provide information to the court from third parties. Currently, the only information kept by the court electronically are the court “records”. Pleadings and exhibits do not exist in electronic format and are therefore unavailable to the public electronically. PUBLIC’S LEGITIMATE NEED FOR COURT RECORDS The public has many legitimate needs for court information, including attorneys, law enforcement agents, private investigators, insurance companies, title insurers, the media, financial institutions, securities firms, tenant screening and employment screening companies which use the service to find information critically important for their work. In a recent survey of Public Attitudes Toward Uses of Criminal History Information (6) it was concluded that, ” there is substantial public support for making certain types of justice records available outside of the criminal justice system when there is a perceived rationale of public benefit and/or safety.” In today’s mobile society, it is common for citizens to move freely across state and county lines to conduct their business and personal affairs. The regional, and often national, nature of such activity highlights the need of individuals and businesses to have the ability to search the court records throughout the country. One illustrative case is that of Shawn C. Lowrance, an adopted 10 year-old child who drowned in October 1999. One of several articles published about this case in The News Tribune of Tacoma, Washington, described the facts concerning the adoptive parents: “As reported in The News Tribune, the couple had a troubled financial past, including two bankruptcy filings and the loss of their Lacey home to forestall a foreclosure. Criminal investigators became suspicious about [Shawn Lowrance]’s death when they learned the couple tried to collect a $650,000 in life insurance they took out on Shawn within a year of his death. An online search would have also turned another equally disturbing “red flag” – the 1993 arrest of the adoptive mother on suspicion of assault against her husband, Shawn’s adoptive father. The couple didn’t mention the incident while undergoing the adoption process. A Washington State Patrol background check turned up nothing because, unlike the online service [CourtLink], the State Patrol doesn’t disseminate arrest records.” (7) Had the adoption agency made an electronic search of court records prior to Shawn’s adoption, it might have made all the difference for him. In fact, in the thirteen-page report of an independent investigation into the adoption, the six-member panel recommended that the Washington Department of Social and Health Services consider using CourtLink. It is common for law enforcement agencies to have criminal record information about witnesses while defense investigators and attorneys cannot obtain the same information unless they physically search each court record. The same is true for parties in civil litigation who desire to determine if a witness has a prior criminal record that would affect their credibility. The inability to find relevant information frustrates the “search for truth” and, ultimately, a just result. EFFICIENCY OF ACCESS Underlying much of the discussion concerning the public’s trust and confidence in courts are the inefficiencies of the courts, which are directly related to a dependency on paper based work processes. It is also impossible for the many courts of the Baltimore-Washington region to make records available in one central location. A member of the public is therefore required to make a physical trip to the courthouse for information that is needed and available at the clerk’s counter. Thus, there is a public need for commercial enterprises to provide information from courts in multiple states or regions through one system. Clerks’ offices, Judges’ chambers, and other judicial offices are not adequately staffed to handle the numerous requests for information; consequently the staff is frustrated from accomplishing its mission of dispute resolution, and the public is frustrated by having to spend more time and money to get the information needed to make legitimate business and personal decisions. Often citizens make decisions ” in the dark” because they do not have the time or resources to search numerous court records. Facilitating and allowing responsible commercial enterprises to electronically access court records enhances the ability of the court to concentrate on its mission of dispute resolution and allows the public to access needed information at a lower cost. One such commercial enterprise is CourtLink the nation’s leading provider of electronic public access to court records – an Internet pathway to and from the our country’s courts. CourtLink has been providing electronic public access to court records since 1991. It currently provides access to over 1100 courts nationwide, including over 90% of the federal courts, and state courts in Washington, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, California, Texas and Maryland, among others. (8) Between January 1999 and October 2000, CourtLink’s customers, who include law firms, corporations, financial institutions, government agencies and investigative firms, electronically accessed court records over 1.2 million times. CourtLink’s over 30,000 customers include 90% of the top 250 law firms in the United States. In the Baltimore-Washington region, CourtLink provides electronic access to the U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington, Virginia and West Virginia, and state courts in Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Currently CourtLink has electronic access agreements in place for state courts that serve nearly 50% of the U.S. population. CourtLink’s mission is to provide the public with better access to the nation’s courts, while complying with legitimate determinations as to what information is public. OTHER APPROACHES Recently the National Center for State Courts conducted the Electronic Filing- Privacy & Public Access Conference 2000 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Over 300 judges and court managers were in attendance. (9) It is clear that the National Center for State Courts recommends that ” all records and court data should be open for public review and access” absent a ” clear showing of countervailing public policy or public individual harm.” Of particular note is Vermont’s recently concluded study of public access to court documents and adopted rules for public access to court records. Justice John A. Dooley of the Vermont Supreme Court addressed the conference to provide the benefit of that state court’s recent experience. His advice was that policy decisions concerning access to court records should be an inclusive process. The Vermont study committee, for instance, had more non-lawyers and judges, including representatives from the media (print, radio, television), business and the other branches of government. Justice Dooley also made the following points:

• Electronic access is a trap – the issue is public access.
• Technology is more of help than a problem.
• The job is never done- there needs to be a continual assessment of evolving technology.
• The clear evolving national consensus is that Internet technology is providing the public with greater access to courts inexpensively and with virtually no harm. Thus, More Access is better than restricted access.
• The public has legitimate need for court records.
•  Technology can provide the pubic with court records more efficiently and at a lower cost.
• Restricting public access to court information is not necessary to protect the public from misuse, as other effective alternative methods exist. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PROTECTING PUBLIC POLICY INTERESTS .

There are many significant public policy interests, which need to be considered and protected. Some are already protected by statute and appropriate legislative bodies will consider more. Indeed, there are some in our society who would misuse information contained in court records. The remedy to protect the public, however, should not be to reduce access to public information when effective alternative methods exist. For instance, laws that prohibit harmful activity, such as criminal record profiling, and by punishing harmful conduct, can protect the public. Such was the approach of Congress when it enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In addition a subscription agreement to access the records can be required to contain a provision against use of the information for prohibited purposes.

This article first appeared on pro2net.com- www.pro2net.com

1 Privacy and Public Access to Court Records by Susan M. Jennen, National Center for State Courts Research Division, 1995 (an updated publication is scheduled for release in December 2000).

2 Richmond Newspapers, Inc v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555,573 (1980)

3 United States Department of Justice et al. v. Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press et al. 489 U.S. 749; 109 S. Ct. 1468 (1989)

4 Id at 753

5 See complete list at www.courtlink.com

6 Public Attitudes Toward Uses of Criminal History Information, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice and SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, May, 2000

7 “DSHS must make adoptions safer”, The News Tribune, Tacoma, WA, June 28, 2000

8 See complete list at www.courtlink.com .

9 http://ctl.ncsc.dni.us/PublicAccess/E-FilingConf.htm . The national Center also maintains a Public Access to Records Web Site athttp://ctl.ncsc.dni.us/PublicAccess/

The post Issue 6.1 Open Access to Court Records appeared first on MontyAhalt.com.

THE LAW AND TECHNOLOGY

By

Judge  Arthur M. Monty Ahalt (Ret.)

As was pointed out last month, the use of electronic means for filing court documents has not waited for the evolution of the law or the technology. The process has marched steadily along. Currently, almost all electronic filing projects are controlled by a case management order signed by a Judge, authorizing the use of electronic filing and specifying the rules and technology that will apply to each project. As case management orders for electronic filing make the transition from specialized mass tort projects to generalized use across all dockets, and as e-commerce statutes becomes more universal, laws and court rules will provide the road map for the electronic filing of court documents. At the same time, technology will continue to mature and provide better and less costly security and authentication alternatives.

THE LAW

The law that governs the use of electronic filing in the court system arises primarily from three sources: the judge’s case management order, court rules, and legislative solutions. Below is a survey of typical examples of each.

Case Management Order

In order to combat inefficiencies in the paper process, often judges issue case management orders to allow for the use of electronic filing in a particular case or project. Such a case management order establishes the conditions and requirements for filing documents electronically and becomes the “law of the caseâ€. Typical of such a case management order is the order Judge Henry Newkirk entered to define the process in Fulton County, Georgia (Atlanta) This order enabled electronic filing of court documents in asbestos cases through JusticeLink[1]. Judge Newkirk’s order which is similar to orders in San Francisco Superior Court, San Diego Superior Court and Texas State Courts requires the parties to file pleadings electronically through the JusticeLink service in accordance with standards and rules enunciated in the order. Other electronic filing providers such as Westfile, Veralaw and Gov24.com also support the case management order approach.

Court Rules

Many court systems have adopted electronic filing procedures that are particular to their jurisdictions. The following is a representative sample of several of those courts. A more comprehensive list of electronic filing rules has been published by the National Center for State Courts and West Publishing.[2]

In Maryland, one of the first states to enact a rule, The Court of Appeals adopted the approach of allowing certain specified courts to undertake electronic filing pilot projects provided they file a pilot plan which met certain criteria contained in the rule. The rule further requires the state court administrator to make a recommendation of approval or disapproval to the Court of Appeals who must approve the plan before electronic filing can begin. JusticeLink conducted the first pilot in 1995 in accordance with this rule in the Circuit Court for Prince Georges’s County and currently has a plan submitted to the Court of Appeals for approval of a pilot in the Baltimore City Circuit Court.[3] The Florida Supreme Court adopted a similar approach.[4]

In Colorado the first state wide state court electronic filing project adopted a rule, which allows for electronic filing of court documents through a court authorized service provider JusticeLink.[5]

In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, for instance, if a party has brought a case before a judge that allows the use of electronic filing procedures, that party can send a notice to the opposing party informing him that the use of electronic means is available. If the parties and judge consent, then all documents related to the case must be filed electronically using the E.D.N.Y. Public Web Site. Each document filed with the court must be signed. This can be achieved by either entering in a User ID and password (if the party is a Filing User) or by having the signature optically scanned onto the document, which is then sent electronically.[6]

The Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has a similar system in place. Once an attorney registers to participate in the Electronic Case Filing System and receives a password from the court, he or she has consented to receive notice and service electronically from that time forward. When filing documents electronically, the filing party must provide those entitled to receive notice that electronic means have been used. If the receiving party is also a registered participant, then service and notice can be transmitted electronically. The procedures of the court also allow for the filing and retrieval of documents by those who do not have access to the Electronic Case Filing System.[7].

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio uses a system called Electronic Case Filing (ECF). In order to use the system, attorneys admitted to practice in the jurisdiction must apply for a User Name and Password, which will function as the party’s signature for documents filed electronically. The attorney must also obtain specific consent from the judge to use electronic filing for each particular case. Currently, complaints must be submitted in paper form, but electronic means can be used for filing documents thereafter. The web site for the Northern District of Ohio provides links to information about ECF, including a walk-through tutorial for lawyers interested in learning how to use the system. [8].

The Supreme Court of North Carolina allows for appellate court documents to be filed electronically. The user must first register with the court; request forms are located online at http://www.ncappellatecourts.org/nc_main_1.nsf. Within a couple of days of when the form is submitted, the person requesting registration will be contacted by phone for identification verification. Once registration has been approved, notification is sent to the applicant by email. In order to file a document electronically a user must log on to the Internet address, convert the document to PDF format using Adobe Acrobat Writer, fill out a form on the web, and upload the file. [9].

Legislative Solutions

Legislative Solutions for electronic signatures have evolved at both the Federal and State levels as Congress and state legislatures have responded to the adoption and expansion of e-commerce. These legislative bodies seek to enable new commercial markets that promise to enhance the economic well being of this country. In this context electronic signatures for electronic filing of court documents becomes a subset of eCommerce. Legislative solutions are necessary at both the state and federal levels in order to address issues of intrastate (state) and interstate (federal) commerce.

State Solutions

Early efforts were made by certain states to lend security to electronic commercial transactions. Utah, California, and Illinois were among the front-runners. The first piece of digital signature legislation was the Utah Digital Signature Act, passed in 1995.[10] The Act attaches a presumption of validity to digital signatures. The meaning of “digital signature†is limited, as it only applies to signatures created using a specific technology, and not to electronic signatures generally.[11] In California digital signature legislation known as Assembly Bill 1577, was passed in California in 1995.[12] The legislation only applies to transactions conducted with public entities, but is expansive in that it does not prescribe the use of a certain type of technology, unlike the Utah Digital Signature Act.[13]

The Illinois Electronic Commerce Security Act took effect in 1998.[14] The legislation distinguishes electronic signatures of varying degrees of security and correspondingly applies presumptions of validity at each level.[15]

National Uniform State Efforts

The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) creates a uniform standard for conducting transactions using electronic means. Twenty-five states have either adopted UETA or enacted substantially similar state legislation: Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.[16]. If adopted by a state, UETA governs its intrastate transactions. It may co-exist with other state electronic commerce legislation, or may stand on its own as the state’s guide to carrying out transactions electronically.

Federal Solutions

The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign), which took effect October 1, 2000, gives electronic signatures the same force as documents signed by hand. The impact of the Act is limited in the sense that it generally only pertains to interstate transactions. E-Sign and UETA share a common purpose: to ease the way for electronic commerce by giving legal validity to electronic transactions.[17]

Unlike E-Sign, however, UETA speaks to attribution of signatures, admissibility of evidence, and the effect of other state laws. Additionally, UETA talks about the impact of errors on electronically created agreements, details pertaining to calculating when documents are sent and received, and consent between parties to use electronic means. [18] Also, the two acts differ with respects to how they resolve issues pertaining to protecting consumers, keeping records, using an electronic agent in the making of transactions, and influencing the powers of state governments. [19]

The enactment of E-Sign created some ambivalence about the validity of state e-commerce laws currently in effect. Generally, if a state has enacted UETA as it was drafted by NCCUSL, E-Sign will not preempt State law. If a state has enacted its own electronic commerce legislation or adopted an altered form of UETA, the issue of whether the state law will be pre-empted by E-Sign must be resolved according to §102(a)(2) of the E-Sign Act. In many cases, the extent to which E-Sign will affect e-commerce legislation drafted by the states is uncertain; the courts will play an important role in determining how the laws should be applied.

THE TECHNOLOGY

Several companies have taken the initiative to develop technology that makes it possible for documents to be signed electronically, and be secured in electronic form.

Ilumin (http://www.ilumin.com) is the creator of Digital Handshake, a web-based program. Customers can link to online signing rooms by clicking on the Digital Handshake icon located on the company’s own Web site. In the signing rooms are documents posted by the company, which customers can access and digitally sign, if they have obtained a digital certificate. Documents may be encrypted and stored in an e-cabinet, where they can be accessed later. [20]

E-Lock (http://www.elock.com) provides a software-based program called Assured Office. Once the software is downloaded, documents created using compatible business software may be digitally signed by scanning the user’s digital certificate into the system. Assured Office allows the user to govern the level and strength of security applied to documents. E-Lock also offers Assured WebSite, which makes it possible to digitally sign Web documents through the use of public-key-infrastructure-based technology. [21]

Silanis (http://www.silanis.com) offers ApproveIt’s, a software program designed to allow a user to attach his digital signature to documents once he has created a file that contains a digitized capture of his handwritten signature, a digital certificate, and a public/private key pair. The user can then electronically sign documents by selecting an icon built into the computer’s toolbar, entering the appropriate password, and arranging the placement of the signature on the document. Security options are available to the user, so the security level desired for the document can be applied. [22]

VeriSign (http://www.verisign.com) is a public certification authority, which provides authentication services and structure for programs. Among its products are VeriSign OnSite and Go Secure! Services. VeriSign OnSite is a public key infrastructure service that secures information viewed or transmitted electronically. Go Secure! Services provide layers of security and verification to a user’s current applications.[23]

PGP (http://www.pgp.com) has developed PGP eBusiness Server, a software program that can authenticate and encrypt data. Additionally, PGP eBusiness Server can verify signatures, and provide security for information as it is being sent from one server to another. [24]

Entrust (http://www.entrust.com) is the creator of Entrust/PKI, which provides the structure for securely encrypting, authenticating, and applying digital signatures to documents. [25]. Entrust/Entelligence is a software program that works with Entrust/PKI, automatically managing security issues, including encryption and digital signatures with a single infrastructure. [26]

THE FUTURE

As e-commerce becomes a predominate method of doing business, the legal system will have to respond to the many practical as well as legal issues e-commerce activity will create. As customary practices develop in e-commerce, the court system will follow the customary practices. Until that time many experiments will take place.

This article first appeared on pro2net.com- http://www.pro2net.com

[1] http://www.justicelink.com

[2] A Guidebook for Electronic Court Filing http://www.ncsc.dni.us/NCSC/TIS/TIS99/ELECTR99/EfileWest.htm

see also Electronic Court Documents http://www.ncsc.dni.us/NCSC/TIS/TIS99/ELECTR99/EDC-TOC.htm

[3] Maryland Rule 16-307

[4] Florida Rule 2.09 Rules of Judicial Admistration

[5] http://www.courts.state.co.us/iis/iisproj.htm

[6] http://www.nylj.com/links/ednyfile.html.

[7] http://www.vaeb.uscourts.gov/home/localrules.html

[8] .

http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/Electronic_Filing/CMECF_Notice/cmecf_notice.html

[9] http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/suggest.htm.

[10] . http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/title46/46_03.htm.

[11] . Karl D. Belgum and Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, Legal Issues in Contracting on the Internet (visited September 13, 2000) http://library.findlaw.com/scripts/getfile.pl?file=/thelen/trp000045.html.

[12] http://www.mbc.com/ecommerce/legis/california.html#CA REGS

[13] Karl D. Belgum and Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, Legal Issues in Contracting on the Internet (visited September 13, 2000) http://library.findlaw.com/scripts/getfile.pl?file=/thelen/trp000045.html

[14] http://www.mbc.com/ecommerce/legis/illinois.html#IL ECSA.

[15] Karl D. Belgum and Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, Legal Issues in Contracting on the Internet (visited September 13, 2000) http://library.findlaw.com/scripts/getfile.pl?file=/thelen/trp000045.html.

[16] http://www.bmck.com/ecommerce/uetacomp.htm

[17] Charles R. Merrill and Robert J. Burger, E-Quality at Last for E-Signatures (August 21, 2000) http://www5.law.com/nj-shl/display.cfm?id=3226.

[18] Patricia B. Fry, A Preliminary Analysis of Federal and State Electronic Commerce Laws (July 7, 2000) http://www.uetaonline.com/docs/pfry700.html.

[19] See id.

[20] Kathy Yakal, Shaking Hands Digitally (August 25, 2000) http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/reviews/0,6755,2620060,00.html

[21] . Kathy Yakal, E-Lock Your Documents (August 25, 2000) http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/reviews/0,6755,2620057,00.html

[22] Kathy Yakal, Make Approvals Bulletproof (August 25, 2000) http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/reviews/0,6755,2620058,00.html.

[23] http://www.verisign.com/enterprise/index.html.

[24]     http://estore.nai.com/asp_set/ShowProducts_set.asp?BU=TNS&Action=110&sOrg=1&Categ=B2B.

[25] http://www.entrust.com/entrust/index.htm

[26] http://www.entrust.com/entelligence/index.htm

The post Issue 5.6 ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES FOR COURT DOCUMENTS: THE LAW AND TECHNOLOGY appeared first on MontyAhalt.com.

By

Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt (Ret.)

With the advent of electronic filing of court documents in the early 1990s many issues were originally thought to be significant impediments. Chief among those issues was the requirement that court documents contain signatures and that there were very few methods of securing a document much less a signature. Many who were resisting change made an argument against electronic filing based upon electronic systems’ inability to make a signature secure.

EARLY EXPERIMENTS

The first electronic filing projects addressed this problem by being closed dial-up (non- Internet) systems, which were managed through proprietary structures. CLAD the electronic filing system first used by Lexis-Nexis in Wilmington, Delaware and JusticeLINK, in Prince George’s County, Maryland both addressed the issue through the use of a password authentication protocol. The protocol required a subscriber to sign a subscription agreement, which triggered the issuance of a password to the subscriber. Both the court and the private company kept a log of each password and subscriber. Since the systems were closed proprietary (non-Internet), security issues concerning the identity of an individual making a filing and the authenticity of the document itself were minimized and managed successfully. For a more complete listing of articles concerning digital signatures see DIGITAL SIGNATURES.

As the legal community started to explore the types of technology that would be the greatest help to overcoming security issues presented by open Internet systems, it became obvious that many of the solutions were extremely expensive. Additionally, many required a certificate authority to maintain a secure list of electronic signatures. It became apparent that there would be competition among stakeholders to become the certificate authority. Would it be the bar association, the court of appeals, the secretary of state, and who would mediate the process to get one national or international certificate authority which would prevent having to deal with multiple certificate authorities?

As this debate continued many clerks, judges and court administrators started to examine more closely the actual paper process in order to better design a secure electronic process that could be used by attorneys from international firms as well as pro se filers. What they discovered was that there does not exist a standard means for authenticating documents or signatures in the paper process. No clerk or judge checks or authenticates a signature in the paper world. See Electronic Court Documents

It is important to recognize at the outset that there are several different security and authenticity issues associated with filing and storing documents. First is the issue of the authenticity of the signature: how is it that the creator of the document and the one who vouches for its truthfulness and accuracy can be accurately identified? Second, is the issue of the authenticity of the document itself: how can there be an assurance that the document cannot be changed or tampered? This article will analyze the first issue. The second issue has been fairly well answered by the use of SSL Internet technology and PDF formatting, both of which have been relatively well accepted and are not very expensive. Secure socket layer (SSL) technology serves as a means of encrypting data sent from the user’s site to the browser. If the message sent is tampered, when it reaches the browser, it will not be readable . Portable document format (PDF), a standard adopted and marketed by Adobe, allows for a document, once converted to the format to be incapable of alteration. The document can be accessed by using free PDF reader software.

PAPER PROCESS AUTHENTICATION

For well over 100 years the courts and clerks of this nation have received paper pleadings that have been signed by parties and their attorneys. Almost every court has rules concerning the signature and oath requirements of particular types of pleadings. See for instance Rule 11 of the Justices’ Courts’ Rules of Civil Procedure adopted by the Supreme Court of Nevada. Neither the clerk nor the court verifies or otherwise authenticates a pleading. Neither the party nor an attorney is required to show any corroborating identification. Indeed many of the pleadings are filed by regular U.S Mail, Federal Express or other delivery services. During my 35 years of experience as a trial lawyer and a Judge, I do not recall many times when a pleading was under serious challenge for the authenticity of a signature of a party or a lawyer. The absence of questions of authenticity in the paper process is attributable to a variety of factors which serve as deterrents to making fraudulent misrepresentations:

1. A signature is capable of being identified as authentic by experts in handwriting analysis, as well as being challenged by the person whose name has been signed.
2. The rules of court require other identifying information, such as a party’s address. The content of the pleading also reveals details about the party and his relationship to others individuals involved in the case or controversy.
3. The opposing party acts as a rigorous check against inaccuracies in the information provided by the filing party.
4. A party submitting a document to the court can be held in contempt for making intentional misrepresentations.
5. The court may sanction the party by dismissing the case, not allowing documents or other evidence to be admitted, or taking other actions to dissipate the impact of the party’s fraudulent representations.
6. Criminal laws punishing forgery and fraud deter fraudulent activity.
7. Civil law remedies such as suits for committing fraud, or for otherwise engaging in a misuse of the judicial process, also act as deterrents.

TECHNOLOGY PROCESS AUTHENTICATION

The questions of whether and how technological means should be used in lieu of the paper process have forced a re-evaluation of the systems currently in place. While it is easy to discount the similarities present in the two processes, their likenesses need to be acknowledged in order to develop a more efficient legal system. In certain cases, the procedural checks present in the paper process also secure the validity of the electronic process. This is true with regards to filing pleadings electronically. Requiring an electronic signature, and identifying information decrease the likelihood that the filing party will be successful in misrepresenting a true identity. The adversarial check and the threat of being held in contempt of court or being sanctioned by the court persist as deterrents to fraud. The risk of facing criminal or civil charges for making misrepresentations or tampering with electronic documents is similarly substantial when engaging in electronic filing. Actually, when the electronic process is scrutinized the elements that are available to authenticate the creator and signer of a document are noticeably greater than in the paper process:

1. An individual’s identity is captured when he becomes a subscriber to an electronic system. His name, address, telephone number, credit card information, financial references, e-mail address, and other identifying information become available to the proprietor of the system.
2. Systems record and log the identity of the source of electronic access.
3. IP (Internet protocol) addresses can be traced to points of origin.
4. Electronic systems assign all transactions a system tracking number, which allow for the identification of specific users. Payment is verified through credit card agencies that maintain records of transactions.
5. Credit card companies maintain internal fraud investigation units that               constantly monitor use patterns to detect the occurrence of fraudulent activity.
6. “ Click†contract technology allows the identification of the PC from which authorization to contract has been given.
7. The rules of court require other identifying information, such as a party’s address. The content of the pleading also reveals details about the party and his relationship to others individuals involved in the case or controversy.
8. The opposing party acts as a rigorous check against inaccuracies in the information provided by the filing party.
9. A party submitting a document to the court can be held in contempt for making intentional misrepresentations.
10. The court may sanction the party by dismissing the case, not allowing documents or other evidence to be admitted, or taking other actions to dissipate the impact of the party’s fraudulent representations.
11. Criminal laws punishing forgery, fraud, and computer tampering deter fraudulent activity.
12. Civil law remedies such as suits for committing fraud, or for otherwise engaging in a misuse of the judicial process also act as deterrents.

CONCLUSION

While it is impossible to design a paper filing system or an electronic filing system that will be 100% effective in preventing fraud, both the paper process and the electronic process of filing court pleadings provide reasonable assurance of accuracy and authenticity. Additionally, a well-identified methodology of ascertaining fraud exists. In the final analysis, there exists substantial evidence that the authenticity of the identity of the creator and signer of an electronically filed document exceed those in the paper process. In future articles, current legislation, court rules and new, evolving technology will be reviewed.

This article first appeared on pro2net.com- http://www.pro2net.com

The post Issue 5.5 ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES FOR COURT DOCUMENTS appeared first on MontyAhalt.com.

Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt ( Ret.) – October 2000

This Article was first published in the Prince George’s County, Maryland Journal/Newsletter

Over the past 5 years remarkable steps have been taken by the legal community to join the INFORMATION AGE. The struggle has not been easy at times mainly because of the professional necessity for stability – as the principle of stare decisis demands. Change is also difficult because so much of today’s work is dependent on yesterday’s work, which is almost always in paper form. The past keeps reminding everyone of the difficulty and the significance of the need to convert paper processes to electronic processes. During the last 12 months I have been traveling the country as Chief Industry Advisor for CourtLink and JusticeLink in an effort to help bring the INFORMATION AGE to the legal community. I have traveled over 100,000 miles, talked to lawyers, judges, clerks, administrators, law librarians and technologists in California, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, New York, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Ohio. The amount of interest in the legal community about learning how to use technology to further each person’s mission is truly astounding. Just one small example. The National Center for State Court’s Institute for Court Management presents an annual Electronic Filing Seminar – attendance in past years was usually under 30 people. Last year they had to turn away over 100 applicants and are planning an Electronic Filing super session later this year. See. www.ncsc.dni.us/ef2000.htm . This article will address the questions: Where have we been? Where are we now? and Where are we going? PAST Where have we been? An antiquated, slow and inefficient paper process has encumbered the past. There are, however, many factors that inhibit and deter a true coordination of all of the elements necessary to allow for the virtualization of the legal profession. The people involved in the legal process and traditional legal institutions, and the types of information needed are all variables that prevent the legal world from solving its problems by electronic means. The participants (the people) in the legal process are the largest barriers to virtualization of legal institutions. The litigants and their lawyers are a barrier because of their geographical diversity, political diversity and institutional diversity. They have competing goals and are usually participating in an adversarial capacity. The litigants do business and have disputes in different cities, different counties, different states, different regions and even different nations. No individual court, legislator or executive has authority to compel his or her methods of work in all venues. The courts where disputes are resolved are also geographically, politically and institutionally diverse. There are federal courts, state courts and county courts. Each court is created by a separate constitution and separate legislation. Each court is also funded by a different executive/legislative budget process. County courts in some states are funded entirely by the state budget, while others are financed only by the county budget. Some courts even receive funding by a combination of state and county budgets. It is said by some that ” if you know one court, you know one court” and the same can be said about a law office, ” if you know one law office, you know one law office” Although they all do the same thing -they do the same thing differently.The past has been dominated by the notions: 1. That legal institutions believe they are paper driven when in fact they are process driven; 2.Limited electronic public access; 3. Fragmented vision and stakeholders fights; 4. Fewer resources-greater needs; 5. Few change sponsors; 6. Resistance to change; 7. A plea for standards; and 8. Y2K distraction of time and money. PRESENT Where are we now? Currently the legal community is slowly beginning to realize that their insistence on doing it “my way” is not only costing them in the court of public opinion, but also in the pocket book. The quickly evolving methods of doing eBusiness and eCommerce in other endeavors are also obviously having a favorable impact. Litigants and government policy makers are starting to insist that new solutions be used instead of the old costly paper process. There has also been a dramatic change in the state of readiness of both the courts and law firms of the nation. The remarkable acceleration of the state of readiness is attributable to several factors. According to Ronald W. Staudt, Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law who participated in the London ABA Annual Meeting session – Wiring the Legal Profession for the 21st Century -networked, e-mail ready computers on legal professionals desks has jumped from 7% in 1985 to 90% in2000. Likewise Internet use on legal professionals desktops has increased from 7% in 1995 to 90% in 2000. Concurrently, with the increase of computer availability is the release of money, emotion and time, which were encumbered by the Y2K problem and solutions. Along with the dramatic improvement and availability of technological infrastructure there has also evolved the beginnings of shared information through the World Wide Web-the Internet. Clients, lawyers and courts are also beginning to share information through web based technologies such as intranets and extranets The current age is occupied by: 1.Experimentation by pioneers; 2.Expanded public access; 3.Fragmented courthouse and law office technologies; 4. Technology evolutionary explosion; 5.Privacy hand wringing; 6.Public private partnership success; 7. Industry standards progress and consensus; and 8. Increasing number of change sponsors. FUTURE Where we are going? The progression of the legal community into the INFORMATION AGE has followed the path of: i. building a technological infrastructure (the past); ii.sharing information (the present); and iii.managing knowledge (the future). Professor Richard Susskind, the author of The Future of Law http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198764960/ < qid=969395848/sr=1-1/002-2454498-3905649> and a noted authority on the future of legal institutions puts it this way, ” In all, then, I expect that traditional legal service will continue to play a major role in society but it will come to be delivered more quickly, at a lower cost, with greater consistency of approach and to a higher quality. Professor Susskind goes on to say that there will be a “disintermediation of legal advisers, whether in-house when firms recognize they need less legal staff for the delivery of service that can be systematized or, worse still, when entire legal tasks are pre-packaged, productised and available on the World Wide Web without the direct involvement of any lawyer or firm.” The Future of Legal Practice, Wiring the Legal Profession in the 21st Century, American Bar Association – 2000 Annual Meeting, London, England. The immediate future will demonstrate: 1. Public private partnership acceptance; 2.Standards adoption by the industry or the market; 3.Courthouse and law office technology integration; 4.Creation of the electronic case file; 5.Open integrated digital pathway to and from the courthouse; 6. The business of dispute resolution and the law office will become a part of e-commerce. This article first appeared on pro2net.com Previous articles are available at www.montyahalt.com/articles/vc/vc.htm .

The post Issue 5.4 VirtualCourthouse – Past, Present and Future appeared first on MontyAhalt.com.

Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt – June 2000

This Article was first published in the Prince George’s County, Maryland Journal/Newsletter

VIRTUALcourthouse.com will soon become a reality. It is anticipated that a pilot will be underway the summer of 2000.

The Vision: A place, unconstrained by time, space, media or location, which enables individuals to resolve their disputes with competent neutrals through diverse methods of alternative and traditional dispute resolution fairly, justly, impartially and expeditiously.

The Mission: To become the world’s largest and most efficient private or public independent dispute resolution organization.

Arbitrators: Arbitrators will be provided an internet based place to advertise their services, administer their business, conduct an arbitration, post their decisions and have the quality of their services rated by the parties and their lawyers.

Methods of Arbitration: Full arbitration. Evidence is presented to an arbitrator, the parties argue the case and the arbitrator renders a decision.

Mediation. A neutral talks to the parties separately or together, pointing out strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case in an effort to affect a consensual compromise solution.

Neutral case evaluation. The parties submit their facts and arguments in summary fashion to a neutral who gives an opinion about the likely outcome if the case were tried by a Judge or jury.

Shadow Jury. The parties present their facts and arguments in summary fashion to a jury of independents to ascertain the value of the case.

Panel of subject matter experts. The parties select a panel of arbitrators who have industry experience in the subject matter area of the dispute. The panel hears the evidence and arguments and renders a decision.

Bid Offer confidential. The plaintiff makes a money demand (confidential) and the defendant makes an offer (confidential); the parties define the rule-arithmetic which settles the case. For instance the parties can agree that if they are within 20 percent, 15 percent, or 10 percent then the case is settled for the average of the two numbers. The parties can agree to make 1, 2 or 3 tries.

Baseball. The parties present their case in summary fashion to a neutral and make a confidential final offer. The neutral renders a decision and the case is settled for the party’s number which is closest to the arbitrator’s number; the losing party pays for the cost of arbitration

Posting claim. A party may post a claim and an offer to arbitrate. VirtualCourthouse will notify the other party of the offer to arbitrate and the parties can negotiate an agreement to arbitrate.

Media for Arbitration: Arbitrators, the parties and their lawyers will be able to select the appropriate Internet on-line media to facilitate the method of arbitration selected.

Face to face. The parties will be able to schedule, on the Internet, a traditional arbitration hearing and file arbitration papers online.

Paper only. The parties will be able to file arbitration claims, arguments and exhibits online. The arbitrator will file a written decision online.

Interactive Word. The parties will be able to interactively present their case in a chat room setting where the arbitrator can ask written question and receive answers from the parties.

Interactive Voice. The parties will be able to present their case to an arbitrator through oral persuasion on the Internet.

Interactive Video. The parties will be able to present the case to an arbitrator using full real time video broadcast quality on the Internet.

Pilot Arbitrators Needed. Any arbitrators or lawyers wishing to participate in the pilot should contact Arthur M. Ahalt at amahalt@virtualcourthouse.com.

JusticeLink-CourtLink: A Vision for the Future: As JusticeLink and CourtLink announced their merger a new vision has evolved for the information age and the legal industry. (See www.justicelink.com and www.courtlink.com ).

JusticeLink is an Internet provider of electronic filing of court documents for the legal community and provides the pathway for information going into the courts. CourtLink, on the other hand, is a provider of electronic public access to court records. The new combined company will thus provide a pathway of information into the courts and a pathway of information out of the courts.

Information in–Information out. This new combined service will reduce time, costs and the resources required to retrieve information from and file documents in the nation’s 16,000 courts. The new company will transform the current methodology of the transfer of information from customer to supplier by providing an online Internet based exchange. Thus all the participants in the dispute resolution process and all of the individuals and institutions who need the information related to the process of dispute resolution will be able to access that information any time any where.

The new company will be headquartered in Bellevue (Seattle), Washington, with regional offices in Dallas, Texas; San Francisco, California; Washington, D.C.; and Denver, Colorado. JusticeLink currently has electronic filing projects in Jefferson County, Texas; Montgomery County, Texas; El Paso, Texas; San Francisco, California; San Diego, California; and Fulton County, Georgia. Projects will soon commence in Baltimore Circuit Court, the Washington D.C., Superior Court; Wilmington, Delaware; and Cleveland, Ohio.

CourtLink currently provides electronic public access to almost all of the Federal District Courts and the Federal Bankruptcy Courts; Oregon; Washington; New York (selected counties); North Carolina (selected counties); Texas (selected counties); Prince Georges County, Maryland; and Riverside, California.

The post Issue 5.3 The VirtualCourthouse appeared first on MontyAhalt.com.

TIP 1: BE A LEADER

Webster defines leadership as the capacity to lead and leading as the act of being at the front. However, leadership really is more than being at the front or having the power because you are placed at the front. A leader causes people to undertake activities that they do not want to do. A great leader causes people to be excited and enthusiastic about doing what they did not want to do. Judges, Bar Leaders and law firm partners have the position of leadership. However, in order to lead there must be something in addition to the position. A leader must desire to take people where they do not want to go. No special skill or ability is required to enable people to do want they otherwise would be inclined to do.

Judges across the nation are stepping up to the plate and leading the way to electronic public access to court records and electronic filing. JusticeLink, www.justicelink.com the leading electronic filing company in the country has electronic filing projects in Texas, California, Georgia, and soon will have projects in Colorado, Delaware, New Jersey, Ohio and Maryland. In each of those jurisdictions, it took the leadership of a Judge to get the momentum started. In Texas, it was Judge Mehaffy. In San Francisco, it was Judge Pollak. In San Diego, it was Judge Prager. In Colorado, it was Judge Sturat. In Georgia, it was Judge Newkirk. In Delaware, it was Judge Del Pesco. In New Jersey, it was Judge Longhi. In Maryland, it started with Judge Angeletti and now Judge Quarles. In Ohio, it was Judge Hannah.

Each one of those Judges took a problem and became leaders by providing a solution, which required enormous change. Now to be sure they were not in each instance alone at the front and other leaders stepped forward. They received support from administrative judges such as Judge Kaplan and now Judge Heller in Baltimore. Or they received support from the highest court such as Justice Martinez in Colorado. Support also emerged from Court Administrators. In California, it was Alan Carlson. In Colorado it was Bob Roper. In Delaware, it was Tom Ralston and in Maryland, it was George Riggin and now Frank Brocolino

TIP 2: BE AN AGENT OF CHANGE

Change will not occur without a sponsor. The sponsors come from all levels of your organization from management to entry level. A key factor for a successful agent of change is enthusiasm. Success will likely pass over the unenthusiastic and strident agents of change. If you cannot be enthusiastic, you might as well not try to effect change. Change is an inevitable product of the technology offered by the information age infocosim. Ordinarily, people resist, fight or ignore change. When those dynamics of resistance occur, change in people’s work patterns occur very slowly and productivity decreases. On the other hand, when change is embraced with an attitude of acceptance, people’s work patterns change very fast and productivity dramatically increases.

The dynamics or the patterns of change are rather predictable. When change is introduced into an organization, initially there will be some level of resistance. It should be expected that the resistance will produce a downturn in attitude and productivity. The level of resistance can be significantly reduced through the involvement of all the stakeholders in the process of planning for the change.

TIP 3: DEVELOP A STRATEGY

Solomon the wisest man of all time said ,”without a vision my people will perish.” In obtaining a vision, it will be helpful to write down the mission of your office.

How will you accomplish your vision? It is the strategy that enables the “rubber to meet the road.” How will you introduce change into your office? How will you get the decision-makers to decide in favor of your vision? How will you get the money people to make your vision a priority? It is your strategy, which counts.

History has shown that if you do not have a plan you will do nothing. You know “shoot at nothing and you are sure to hit it” Of course, a plan must be written and not just in your mind. A plan which is just in your mind is not really a goal. It is nothing more than a dream. On the other hand there is power in putting the plan down on paper. When you commit something to writing, commitment to achievement follows naturally. It is like New York Yankee great Yogi Berra said, “If you don=t know where you are going, when you get there you will be lost.”Ten Tips for the New Millenium

TIP 4: BE WILLING TO TAKE RISKS

Nothing ventured is nothing gained. In order to begin to use technology to your advantage, you must be willing to risk some of your time and a little bit of money. With risk comes reward. The track record for technology is that until you put your time and money at risk, your learning curve does not begin. The sooner you start the less time you will lose.

TIP 5: USE THE INTERNET

Everyday more content appears on the Internet. More and more useful information is becoming available. However, you need to become a student. Set aside some hours of the week, which will be devoted to examining legal resource web sites. Learn how to organize your bookmarks. Talk to your favorite law librarian (mine is Pam Gregory) about what is new and what is helpful.

TIP 6: READ, READ, READ

Read a book on the Internet; Pick up a periodical at the newsstand on the Internet. Better yet subscripe to a periodical. A good place to start is the newspaper. Most newspapers now have a weekly section of columns about computers. Some are very basic “how to” questions and answers while others are more narrative articles on some new software or hardware. The point is that if you start using the words often, you will soon know and understand the terminology. Another good idea is to buy a different computer magazine a month off of the newsstand and just read the advertisements and articles of interest

TIP 7: TALK TO LAWYERS AND JUDGES

Experience we know is a great teacher. If you make the use of computers the topic of conversation as you talk to other lawyers about your cases, you will be surprised at the amount of information you will gain in a very short period of time. What works? What does not work? What developments are helpful? What developments are duds?

TIP 8: ATTEND A TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE

Hardly a month goes by when there is not a bar technology conference somewhere in the Baltimore- Washington metropolitan area. The programs are high quality, practical, educational events. The quality is similar to the usual high-quality Continuing Legal Education seminars for years sponsored by local, state and national bar association leaders.

Events you should consider are the Maryland State Bar Association’s Techshow on February 18 & 19, 2000, at the BWI Marriott. Contact Pat Yevics at MSBA headquarters for details at pyevics@msba.org . Or check at the Bar Association’s website at www.msba.org . Also, consider the American Bar Association’s Techshow 2000 in March in Chicago, Illinois. Check the ABA’s website at www.abanet.org for further details.

TIP 9: USE YOUR BAR ASSOCIATION WEB SITE

Your bar association is devoting more and more resources to its web site. As it becomes apparent that the Internet is a valuable tool for providing a continuous stream of information, more information is made available on the Internet.Have you checked out the new content and format of the Prince George’s Bar Association web site www.pgcba.com developed by Don Patterson of Koolstuf Internet Consultants, Inc. www.koolstuf.com . Better yet let Don publish your web page and teach you how to be your own web master.

TIP 10: USE E-MAIL

Make everyone you communicate with on paper aware that you would rather communicate by e-mail. Put your e-mail address on your stationary and your professional cards. Encourage your bar association to publish member lists of e-mail addresses. Make it clear to everyone that you communicate with that you would rather communicate by e-mail. I recently called Judge Ford in Oakland, California and her voicemail had a message, which said that she would rather communicate by e-mail and the message gave her e-mail address.

February 2000

The post Issue 5.2 Ten Tips for the New Millenium appeared first on MontyAhalt.com.