UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                     333 Constitution Ave., N.W.
                     Washington, D.C. 20001-2866

                            March 4, 1997 
 
L. Ralph Mecham 
c/o Appellate Court and Circuit Administration Division 
ATTN: ABA Citation Resolution, Suite 4-512 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 
Washington, DC 20544 

     RE: American Bar Association Resolution on Electronic Citations 

Dear Mr. Mecham: 

     You have recently circulated a survey soliciting views on the 
American Bar Association's ("ABA") resolution urging the adoption of 
a uniform electronic citation format. In a letter to the ABA, the 
Federal Appellate Clerks unanimously opposed the proposal as then 
written. Unfortunately, the ABA made no changes in response to that 
letter and adopted the resolution now before us. 

     The clerks did not oppose standard electronic citation formats 
and the ABA does not explain why "blue book" electronic citation 
format is not acceptable. Rather, the clerks' objection stems from 
the increased administrative burden that would result from the new 
format. 

     For example, the proposed format dispenses with the case number 
as the identifier for the disposition and replaces it with a 
"sequential" number. An opinion identifier which does not include the 
actual case number of the appeal is, by itself, meaningless. A reader 
who has only the sequential number will always have to take an 
additional step to determine the case number before the file or 
procedural history of the case can be accessed. In effect, reliance 
on a sequential number to identify opinions requires use of a "key" 
to translate the opinion number into a case number. This is 
especially important now that the courts offer on-line access to 
docket information and opinions. 

     Several questions about this translating key are not answered by 
the ABA's resolution. Who will create and maintain the key? How will 
researchers access it? How long will it have to be maintained for 
future readers' use? If the ABA format is adopted, we believe that 
the clerks of the circuit courts will be required to create and 
maintain these keys, to provide the information to users through our 
existing staffs and resources, and to maintain the keys forever. 

     Additionally, the use of a sequential number to identify 
opinions complicates our internal operations. Each clerk's office 
will have to create and maintain new databases to track this 
information, and we will have to train deputies in their use. Please 
note that the proposal seems to also apply to unpublished 
dispositions. To comply with the ABA resolution all dispositions 
would have to be sequentially numbered by court staff -- in order of 
disposition. 
 
     Finally, it does not appear to me that the sequential identifier 
is simpler to use than a case number identifier. Is 1977 DC Cir. 
133U, for example, any easier to use or remember than the current 
system based on case number, court and date of issuance? The 
difference between the two forms of citation is simply not 
significant enough to justify the loss of the important information 
provided by a citation which includes the actual case number and the 
date of issuance. 

     The D.C. Circuit is currently making due with reduced staff 
allocations. In this environment, any suggestion for a change in 
procedures which requires the expenditure of additional resources and 
staff time must be carefully examined. A change of this scope should 
only be implemented when a persuasive case can be made that the 
change will improve the service we offer the bench, the bar, and the 
public. It is not at all clear that this proposal will offer benefits 
sufficient to outweigh the administrative costs. 

     I do not object at all to uniform electronic citation. My 
objection is to a format that would require each Court to completely 
change the way it dockets decisions or to set up a parallel docketing 
system without sufficient justification for the new format. 

     As for numbering paragraphs in an opinion, I have no objection 
so long as the need to insert the numbers does not create a 
significant burden on the judiciary. Although I fear that the 
numbering would have to be done in chambers, and would create 
substantial headaches, I imagine that it might be feasible to 
accomplish. 

                                   Sincerely, 
 
                                   Harry T. Edwards 
                                   Chief Judge