FINAL APPROVED BY COMMITTEE JUNE 21, 1991

THE NEED FOR NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL EDI:

	The recent publication of Trial Court Performance Standards by a national 
commission provides many goals for the judicial and legal community.  
Generally, these include improving access to justice, improving expedition 
of case processing, improving fairness and integrity, improving the 
independence and accountability of the judiciary, and, improving public trust 
and confidence in the nation's court system.  Judicial Electronic Data 
Interchange is a powerful tool whereby the courts, general public, executive 
agencies, and the bar in the United States can attain these goals.

	Beginning in June, 1990, a broad based consortium of interest 
persons, organizations and corporations began to form the Judicial edi 
Consortium ("the Consortium") to establish Electronic Data Interchange 
(please see the end note regarding committee definition of EDI) and other 
standards for legal documents and court filings.  The Consortium is 
comprised of judges, judges' associations, court administrators, bar 
associations, lawyers, corporations, and other professional associations 
dedicated to obtaining the benefits of EDI for the American justice system.  
This paper outlines the Judicial EDI concept and its enormous potential for 
improving the justice system in this country.

I. WHY EDI MAKES SENSE 

	Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) is the computer to computer 
exchange of structured business information in recognized formats.  EDI 
standardizes the language between the two organizations' computers.  EDI 
formats have been developed in recognized national and international 
standards making organizations (including the United Nations).  EDI reduces 
time and effort to communicate information between organizations.  EDI is 
used by most major companies and several federal government agencies.  
Companies use it with their trading partners to handle purchase orders, 
invoices, request for quotes, and many other business functions.  
Government also uses EDI for procurement, and various reporting 
requirements including electronic filing of tax forms.  Although the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has endorsed the use of EDI 
standards established by the X12 Committee of the American National 
Standards Institute (a non governmental standards setting body). there are no 
specific EDI standards for judicial information interchange.  However, 
several commercial standards are designed to be augmented for new 
applications, and could possibly support some judicial functions.  
Consequently, an effort is needed to define the additional functionality and 
formats required to support legal and judicial work and, to determine 
whether the commercial standards are applicable. 

	There are many reasons set forth why judicial EDI standards have not 
been established to date.  The answer to these objections and Judicial 
Electronic Data Interchange's potential are explained below.

II. OBJECTIONS & CONCERNS

1. Different Court Systems

	One  significant objection toward development of national standards 
has been the assertion that judicial systems (their organization, rules, and 
methods of working with other non-judicial users) vary from federal to state 
and state to state in such a wide degree that no standard would be possible.  
This problem is very similar to commerce where different companies, 
making different products, organized in different ways, using different 
computer systems, with different information and accounting systems, must 
communicate with many different suppliers and distributors.  The traditional 
method has been to develop paper forms both in courts and commerce.  The 
information is then organized is such a way that workers can recognize and 
record the information on their local system.  

	Commerce found that EDI can be thought of as two things.  First, it is 
an electronic form creation system.  Just as information is transferred to a 
form, filling in the blanks, information can be filled in electronically to an 
EDI form.  Second, EDI provides the mail transport system to deliver the 
form.

	Therefore, one effort by the committee is to define core data elements 
and document structures for the various types of court actions.  For example, 
names, addresses, telephone numbers, charges, and pleas can all be put into 
standard fields.  In addition, some documents (motions and pleadings) 
require text to be transmitted along with the standard fields.  Thus, different 
standards would be created for each element of information (or data) 
contained in the various legal transactions.

	Some of the base line work for Judicial EDI has already occurred.  
First, the National Criminal Information Center has standards for data 
elements which must be transmitted by the state criminal justice repositories.  
Some of this information comes from the court systems.  Second, during the 
1970's work was done by the SEARCH Group to define core data elements 
for criminal justices cases in their GAVEL project.    And third, during the 
past two years, the State of Washington has built a data dictionary for all 
levels of courts.  They have identified the common elements that are 
necessary at all levels of court in their state.  This, and other work can be 
used as a foundation upon which to build the Judicial EDI standard.

	In addition, while the core data fields will be standardized, the Judicial 
EDI standard can be flexible to allow for locally defined areas to handle 
special needs. 
  
2. Different Computer Systems

	To date, courts and cooperating agencies have built their own 
communications systems to allow their computers to work together.  It is a 
large job to plan, develop, test, install, and maintain the hardware that is 
necessary to communicate between systems and to coordinate the software 
between systems.  Multiply this by all the agencies and individual attorneys 
that courts must deal with on a day to day basis and it becomes a formidable 
task.  EDI recognizes a fact of modern automation, that different courts and 
agencies will have different types of computer systems.  

	EDI allows each group, the court - law enforcement - prosecutors - 
public defenders - private attorneys - corrections - social service agencies, to 
have their own systems.  Thus, each group can develop or choose the 
hardware and software configuration which best meets their needs.  EDI then 
becomes the bridge (which paper forms and reports now provide) to transmit 
the information between entities without regard for software and hardware.  

3. Authentication of Documents

	Another area of contention regarding the use of EDI in courts 
concerns the need to provide legally sufficient authentication of documents 
transmitted electronically.  Today, when an attorney or a courier brings 
filings to the clerk of court, they generally accept things for what they are, 
unless it is proven in court under evidentiary rules, that the filing has been 
falsified.  Only when a question is raised by the litigants or the judiciary is 
the document checked for authenticity.  

	Judicial EDI will greatly improve this procedure.  Just as in Electronic 
Funds Transfer systems (which moves billions of dollars each month 
between banks), EDI automatically logs the document's path.  For example, 
if an attorney sends a document to the court, EDI would log the message 
first, in the originating attorney's computer, second by the receiving EDI 
common carrier, third (and again) by the EDI common carrier as the 
message is transmitted to the court, and fourth, by the receiving court.  A 
complete audit trail is provided.  Thus, EDI is to electronic transfer what 
registered or certified mail is to paper transfer, but it is automatic and 
instantaneous.  Logs can be produced contemporaneously with the 
transaction, with very little investment of time or staff.  Further, logs can be 
stored on electronic/magnetic media in a fraction of the space they would 
otherwise require.  While the legal context in which the electronic logs are 
admissible and of equal stature with paper  is not fully developed, there are 
strong suggestions that a properly executed electronic environment will be 
acceptable.  Finally, it would be possible for the court, through the Judicial 
EDI system, to return receipt acknowledgements to the senders of the filings.

 4. Filing Fees

	Courts are concerned that it will be difficult to collect the required 
fees from electronic filings.  This is currently being handled in several ways 
by courts which are accepting filings via facsimile (FAX) machines.  Courts 
have allowed impound accounts to be set up by law firms which can be 
drawn upon by the clerk's office when a filing is made.  In addition, many 
courts now accept corporate and personal credit cards, or debit cards from 
attorneys and litigants.  These systems protect courts in three ways; first, 
receiving immediate credit in its bank accounts; second, the court improves 
its internal cash control; and third, the court shifts the burden of collection to 
the companies who issue the credit cards.  The credit/debit card system can 
also be used in walk-in filings in the clerk's office.  If this is not a viable 
option in a court, then standard commercial fund transfers are another option 
which could be implemented.

5. Exhibits

	The handling of exhibits and other original documents attached to 
pleadings raises other objections.  Judicial EDI cannot completely solve this 
problem because physical transmission of original documents and evidence 
is involved.  However, many courts are using imaging technology to store 
their records.  An EDI standard for scanned image transmission could be 
developed.  This would allow the bulk of this information such as traffic 
citations and contracts to be transmitted to the court when required.  EDI 
could also be used to acknowledge receipt of exhibits for tracking purposes.  
Physical Evidence, such as grams of cocaine or faulty landing gear could not 
be transmitted via EDI, but a flag that such evidence exists and perhaps a 
cite to indicate where it is located could easily be included in the EDI 
transaction.

6. Support

	In contrast to law enforcement, courts have not had strong support for 
development of standards from the Federal Government.  Law enforcement, 
the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and the National Criminal 
Information Center developed standards and implemented them throughout 
in order to develop the national database.  A few courts, through 
participation in regional criminal justice systems, or statewide court 
information systems, have developed the means to electronically 
communicate and share information with law enforcement and prosecutor's 
offices.  These efforts have been limited to a few regional and state areas.

	This situation has improved during the past decade.  With the advent 
of the State Justice Institute, and continuing support for the Federal Judicial 
Center, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the 
American Bar Association, it is possible to obtain the financial backing to 
develop EDI standards and projects to demonstrate the utility of these 
standards.

	Further, many corporations have entered the field of court automation.  
The National Center for State Courts lists over 170 companies which 
currently provide technology to the courts throughout the country.  This 
number does not include the companies which provide systems for legal 
practices and law enforcement.  A Judicial EDI standard would facilitate the 
development by these companies of systems which could cooperate instead 
of standing alone. 

III.  BENEFITS

	Several potential benefits associated with developing a Judicial EDI 
standard have been identified.  The following section outlines these areas:

1.  Increased Capabilities

	Professor Henry H. Perritt, Jr., in his monograph The Role of Format 
and Content Standards and Other Conventions in Facilitating Electronic 
Exchange of Accounting and Legal Information (1991), points out the 
fundamental difference between image documents (paper, facsimile, and 
computer imaging) and electronic documents (EDI and electronic files such 
as word processing).

	Image documents, which the legal systems primarily uses today, 
provides only the capability of being processed by humans (reading and 
filing).  In the image format, the document must then be either re-keyed into 
a computer system (form entry) or translated using Optical Character 
Recognition (OCR) technology (which can be accomplished from image or 
paper) into a machine usable format such as word processing.  It has been 
easy for the legal community to embrace facsimile (FAX) technology.  FAX 
is simply an extension of the printer or typewriter in production of an image. 
Therefore, facsimile and imaging systems (and even overnight mail service) 
only serves to speed up the paper flow mess.  

	Electronic documents, as described under Judicial EDI, provide the 
opportunity to perform work on the documents which are received.  Several 
distinct benefits result from receiving documents in electronic format.  First, 
the "header" information in electronic document can be read by the computer 
and pertinent data automatically inserted into a database.  In many cases, the 
remainder of the document would be text.  The Judicial EDI standard will 
have to determine the document text format so that word processing 
programs and printers at the receiving site can properly format and replicate 
the appearance of the document.  

	Once received, the court or legal office could then insert the electronic 
document into a text database thereby allowing it's contents to be searched 
and extracted for legal research or word processing.  Document management 
is a growing concern in the legal community.  Electronic documents 
therefore would provide the additional functionality to improve document 
management that image documents lack.  Finally, at the end of the case, the 
distribution of the results of the courts actions in electronic form, to legal 
publishers or law enforcement will allow for quick and accurate recording 
and reporting of the results.

2.  Time Savings

	As noted earlier under the Authentication of Documents section, a 
significant time savings derives from the ability of an EDI driven system to 
automatically generate logs.  This eliminates the need to dedicate office staff 
and time to this mundane function.  

	First, EDI permits 24-hour receipt of documents, without staff present, 
and with appropriate "date-time received" stamping regardless of whether 
human intervention is available when the document arrives.  Thus, the time 
required to transmit filings and information to the court would be greatly 
reduced.  Electronically filing could be accomplished in a matter of minutes 
rather than days when the mail or a courier is used.  In addition, information 
contained in the filing is available to other users as soon as the filing is 
accepted by the clerk, rather than the hours or days later it takes to post 
information in a paper listing, book, or file.

	Second, since the information would be received electronically, it 
could be stored on the courts automated systems.  The automated docket 
entry also permits automated preparation of indices, rosters, and court 
schedules with provision for manual overrides.  This also allows for 
centralized retrieval (no lost files), computerized text searches (instead of 
manually searching through pages), and automated docket (register of 
actions) entry for the court clerks.  

	Third, the automated docket entry would also improve accuracy since 
the information would not need to be transcribed (just verified) into the 
courts automated system.  Receipting of the documents and filing fees could 
also be handled automatically thus reducing paperwork in the clerks office.

	Fourth, in criminal matters, Judicial EDI would facilitate filings from 
the prosecutors and law enforcement agencies.  Prosecutors would file their 
case through Judicial EDI rather than printing the information.  In addition, 
reports created on the law enforcement and prosecutors computers could also 
be transmitted to courts once the case was filed.  Again, no or reduced 
paperwork would result.   At case termination, the conviction or acquittal 
information could flow back (via EDI) to the prosecutors and law 
enforcement from the official record at the court.  Thus, Judicial EDI would 
reduce the need for both state and local criminal repositories which are 
proliferating and overflowing in criminal justice systems today; -- one 
serving the court and another serving law enforcement.  Judicial EDI also 
would improve completeness of justice data bases and make them more 
readily accessible to the bar, the bench, the public, and researchers interested 
in evaluating the legal system.

	Fifth, similar benefits would be derived in the civil law system and, 
almost immediately in the domestic relations and child support case areas.  
Filings and information would flow from attorneys to the court in electronic 
format, and reports, schedules, and dispositions would be electronically 
returned to the originating attorney, child support enforcement bureau, and 
others as required.  For example, child support debtors (e.g., absent parents) 
have learned that they can avoid making child support payments by moving 
to a different jurisdiction.  It's more difficult for a judgement debtor to evade 
their obligations when agencies can share information, but not impossible.  
The debtor simply move quietly to the next state.  Therefore, if child support 
EDI is standardized nationally, judgement debtors might have to pay their 
obligations and would find it much more difficult to evade them.  Because 
the taxpayers often pick up the tab when child support is not paid, 
considerable cost savings are possible here, more than offsetting the cost of 
developing and implementing EDI-based systems.

	The flow of documents in civil litigation could also be enhanced 
through Judicial EDI.  Documents filed electronically with the court and 
copies on opposing legal council would facilitate preparation of statements 
of contested issues, proposed findings of fact, and mutual, jointly prepared 
orders.  These documents in electronic format, by permitting "long distance" 
electronic cutting and pasting, would greatly expedite the resolution of such 
matters.

3.  Standardized Communications

	Electronic Data Interchange communications used by commerce are 
often assisted by computer companies that specialize in connecting different 
types of computers together.  For example, many mainframe computers use 
synchronous communications.  For a personal computer to communicate 
with the mainframe, it is necessary for the PC to have some type of 
communications interface (synchronous communications board, network 
interface board, protocol converter, etc.)  added in order to make the 
connection.  The EDI computer companies therefore allow each computer to 
communicate without the addition of extra, and sometimes costly equipment.  
That uniformity of communication is particularly important for the court.  If 
the court has to engineer many separate interfaces with different types of 
computer systems, the impact of Judicial EDI will be minimal.  However, if 
the court only has to deal with one connection, to the commercial EDI 
vendor, then the court can connect to all the various computer systems in the 
legal community.

4. Security

	As noted above, Judicial EDI would provide a complete log and 
transaction tracking system.  Currently, multiple systems are employed by 
courts, prosecutors, private attorneys, law enforcement, and other agencies 
to track court filings and proceedings.  Judicial EDI will not eliminate these 
systems in all cases, but it will increase their efficiency.

	Judicial EDI would also increase the capability of the legal system to 
protect the information from tampering.  Paper files are easily altered or 
misplaced.  Modern computer security systems, properly implemented, 
significantly reduce the number of persons who have access to change court 
records.  For example, computer security can check the authority and log the 
name of the person accessing the file, the time they accessed the file, the 
records that they accessed and, the changes that were made.  This is not 
possible with paper records.  Finally, security would be further enhanced if 
electronic funds transfer (or credit/debit card payments) are added thereby 
reducing cash handled by the court.

	Judicial EDI could also reduce the need for courts to have direct 
access to law enforcement systems.  While Judicial EDI would not replace 
the central criminal repositories, it would enhance the ability of the courts to 
provide more timely and accurate information.  Currently, NCIC rules 
greatly restrict the connection of other computer systems to the central 
criminal repositories and the physical access to computer terminals 
connected.  Judicial EDI could implement a stringent set of logging and 
verification procedures which would allow selected information to flow 
securely between court and criminal justice systems.  For example, when 
dispositional data is produced by the court, it will not be necessary to 
acquire a dedicated and secure criminal justice system terminal to enter the 
data.  The data can be transmitted to the criminal justice agency, verified, 
and then posted to the criminal justice repository.   Again, this will 
significantly increase the speed with which this information is transmitted 
and improve its accuracy since it will not have to be re-keyed, just verified,  
by an operator.  

5. Access to Information

	Since Judicial EDI records would be in electronic form, properly 
implemented systems could increase the availability of public information.  
Secure computer bulletin boards, containing information from the separate 
active court automated system would allow attorneys, law enforcement, and 
the public to electronically query the system.  This could reduce the 
workload of the clerks who handle these requests either in person or via 
telephone.  This is particularly important to public and private law firms and 
corporate law departments in tracking civil litigation.  Many law firms and 
corporate law departments implement their own internal docket systems to 
track pleadings and other court filings for their cases.  Judicial EDI could 
assist these law firms and law departments in either receiving on-line access 
to the court record or requesting and receiving copies of the court record. 
Legal council frequently has the need to know whether or not a lawsuit has 
been brought or claims made in various courts across a state or nationally.  
As a result, someone in the office must call the various courts to find this 
information and determine the fee for the search (unfortunately, many times 
the court will not perform the search and the law firm must physically send 
someone to retrieve the information).  Thus, in a larger sense, if Judicial EDI 
were widely implemented, it would be possible for law firms, corporate law 
departments and, prosecutor offices to make a broadcast request for 
information about a specific litigant from many courts at one time.  

6. Appeals

	Judicial EDI could also facilitate transmitting lower court records to 
the appellate courts.  Because the majority of the record would be in  
electronic format, it could be transmitted to the appellate court via EDI link 
or computer disk or tape.  Further, in those courts where Computer  Assisted 
Transcription (CAT) technology is in use, transcripts would be available, in 
addition to the pleadings filed through EDI for the appellate record.  Judicial 
EDI could also address the format and distribution of appellate court 
decisions to the reporting companies.  Today, individual court reporting 
companies are creating separate electronic uploading systems for appellate 
courts to transmit their opinions.  A Judicial EDI in this area could 
standardize this system thus alleviating work on both sides.

7.  Outsourcing - Private Companies

	To date, it has been difficult for private technology companies to work 
in the courts.  Therefore, many courts have had to build their own automated 
systems.  As noted above, this is due to the differences in the structure, 
procedures, and the data required in the various courts throughout the 
country.  Judicial EDI has the potential to allow the judicial community to 
build systems which can work (send and receive information) between 
courts and law firms, prosecutors, law enforcement, child support, and social 
service agencies.  By standardizing the data which will be transmitted to 
other systems, individual court systems can be customized for local needs 
while achieving the connectivity which will streamline operations.  Finally, 
courts will benefit from the ideas and competition in development of 
automated court systems by the private sector.

III. SUMMARY 

	In essence, the Judicial EDI effort is a way to agree on voluntary 
standards.  Courts and others can be sure they will not have to "reinvent the 
wheel" of creating new systems.  Courts will, however,  be able to share 
their information with more people than if standards did not exist.  The 
development of Judicial EDI standards is but the first step in a long, gradual 
process of converting systems.  The transformation will not take place 
overnight, but it can serve as a foundation upon which to build a better 
automated judicial system.

	In addition, state court systems would be able to move toward unified 
information sharing without incurring the cost of replacing all existing 
hardware and software.  Court management systems already in place would 
be able to plug into the emerging state, regional, and national data sharing 
networks for the relatively small cost of generating EDI transaction sets.  At 
a time when caseloads are growing exponentially, public resources available 
to implement or upgrade systems are shrinking, and interest in sharing 
information across jurisdictional lines is becoming a basic element of the 
national justice system.  EDI may be the only way to make the progress 
necessary to sound judicial management. 

					The Judicial edi Consortium

Note:	The term Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) used by the Consortium 
in this document should not be construed as only encompassing the 
transaction sets defined by the ANSI X12 Committee or EDI-FACT.  In 
development of Judicial EDI standards, the Consortium intends to study all 
applicable standards for data and document transmission and exchange and 
pursue Judicial EDI standards which will best meet the needs of the judicial 
community.
12