Subject: Email Comment on Public Domain Citations to Judicial 
          Conference
   Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 00:56:55 -0800 (PST)
   From: capps@cruznet2.cruznet.net
     To: citation@teo.uscourts.gov

     The public is asked to comment on two questions:

     (1) Whether the federal courts should adopt the form of official 
citation for court decisions recommended by the ABA resolution?

     Yes, I have read the ABA recommendation for official court 
citations by opinion number and by numbered paragraphs, and urge the 
federal courts to adopt this system.

     (2) The costs and benefits such a decision would have on the 
courts, the bar, and the public?

     The costs to begin issuing official citations when an opinion is 
released will be minimal. Already our courts are using computer 
systems to store, retrieve, and disseminate opinions, and each case 
is already assigned a unique docket number. Numbering of paragraphs 
within each opinion is a process easily automated and therefore 
inexpensive.

     Retroactive numbering of cases will also be inexpensive, mostly 
because all the federal courts have to do is issue the rule on how to 
do the numbering, and then many potential reporter vendors will enter 
the market and supply the work.

     The benefits to such a system are many. The identity of the 
court issuing the opinion will be a part of the official citation, 
and will no longer be a parenthetical addition. This provides more 
information to the users of citations. This "vendor neutral" system 
will spawn increased competition in the market for case reporting 
materials, and this will decrease costs.  The public will now have 
inexpensive access to judicial opinions over the internet with a 
standard citation system, which is independent of the medium.

     Competition in computer based case reporting search systems 
will reduce the costs of legal services to the public, and will allow 
better researched court documents from small and medium firms. This 
will assist the courts in their work. Reduced costs for legal 
services should expand the market for legal services to millions of 
Americans of moderate means who have legal problems that they cannot 
afford to properly address.

     One of the primary functions of government is to provide a 
peaceful means of resolving private disputes. When the costs of 
civil suits are beyond the means of most Americans, this means that 
the benefits of government are also beyond their means. This 
dichotomy of not being able to afford the lawful means of redressing 
private wrongs, breeds discontent with government.

     I could go on and on listing reasons to adopt the ABA proposed 
system, but as a law student entering my second year, I cannot find 
the time.

     Thank you for your consideration.

                                   J. Melville Capps
                                   2L, Western State University
                                   Fullerton, CA