Author:   <MaxM7@aol.com> at ~Internet 
Date:     3/12/ 0 12:41 PM 
Priority: Normal 
BCC:      citation at AO-OCPPO 
TO:       citation@ao.uscourts.gov at ~Internet 
CC:       mlp@njlaw.com at ~Internet 
Subject:  Public domain legal citations 
 
     I support the enclosed well reasoned comments of Michael L. 
Prigoff, Esq. I wish to add that there is no merit to the argument of 
those in opposition to the proposal that it will increase the work of 
the people in the clerks office. When the court prepares the decision 
they can use a style sheet that will automatically place paragraph 
numbers in the decision. 

     "The advantage of paragraph numbering is that it permits precise 
references to text, regardless of the publisher, the fonts used, or 
the format in which the information is displayed. This system is as 
old as the Bible, which itself uses a system of paragraph numbers. 
Paragraph numbering is also used by lawyers to identify the text in 
court pleadings. (The ABA committee was told that appeals court 
judges often number the paragraphs of draft opinions, which go 
through several versions.)" 

     The cost benefits of this proposal bogle the mind. Easy access 
to court decisions may even cut litigation cost and help cut down on 
the filing of law suits that have no basis, based on "recent 
decisions" that are available to all on the WWW. 

     Ordinary citizens care about access to court opinions. The 
courts should do a better job making court information available to 
taxpayers, who are expected to obey the law. The courts should make 
all federal court opinions available on the Internet, with citations 
that will permit the public to uniquely identify and cite an opinion. 

     Federal, state, and local governments are huge consumers of high 
priced legal information, and that taxpayers will benefit from more 
competition for legal information. 
 
     Thank you for you consideration. 
 
3/11/97 
 
Committee on Automation and Technology, 
Judicial Conference of the United States 
 
     I write to urge the Committee, as well as the Conference, to 
adopt the proposal of the American Bar Association for official 
citation of Federal decisions. Although I am a member of the American 
Bar Association Board of Governors, and a member of the House of 
Delegates that overwhelmingly endorsed the proposal, my comments here 
are as a private citizen and attorney. 
 
     The ABA proposal makes eminent sense. It will undoubtedly 
provide wider, quicker, and less expensive access to the courts' 
opinions while at the same time imposing no significant expenses on 
the courts. Furthermore, it will establish a level playing field for 
all vendors of recorded court opinions, which will result in a freer 
market with increased competition and reduced costs for consumers. 
 
     At present, the official citation form, while well-suited to 
book publishing, does not allow for easy translation to publishing in 
electronic form. Furthermore, the proprietary rights claimed by West 
Publishing place artificial cost barriers to producing useful 
electronic products, such as CD-ROMs with hypertext links to texts of 
cited opinions. Finally, the present system has a built-in delay 
after a decision is approved for publication during which there is no 
official citation, even though it is technically feasible to easily 
make the opinion available to the bar and public by electronic means. 
 
     The ABA proposal does not have these deficiencies. The citation 
is created the instant the opinion is approved for publication. The 
citation is vendor-neutral, it applies equally well if the publisher 
(or reader) uses books, CD-ROMS or the Internet. And, in addition, 
the system allows for more accurate pinpoint citation for interior 
cites to the particular paragraph. 
 
     Moreover, the ABA proposal will result in tremendous cost 
savings for the bar and other consumers of court opinions. Through 
increased competition, freed from artificial barriers and costs 
imposed by West Publishing, the cost of obtaining current opinions 
will be substantially reduced. This was the case in South Dakota, 
where the cost of state opinions on CD-ROM went from approximately 
$1600 per year to $500 per year when a similar proposal was adopted 
and the State Bar began competing with West. 
 
     These cost savings are substantial, and apply to every purchaser 
of legal opinions, including the courts and public libraries. 
Moreover, the proposal does not require the imposition of increased 
costs on the courts. The only thing that the courts will have to do 
is issue sequential numbers to the opinions as they are approved for 
publication, and number the paragraphs in the opinion, processes 
which can easily be automated with commercially-available word 
processing software. 
 
     In short, the proposal is a win-win-win proposition for the 
courts, the bar, and the public and should be enthusiastically 
embraced by the Conference.  
 
     I offer a final comment about West Publishing. Their intense 
opposition to this proposal, which undoubtedly explains much of any 
negative comments you have received, is telling as to the merits of 
the issue. In New Jersey, where the same issue is under 
consideration, West has now taken the position that the proposal is 
acceptable, but only if parallel citations to books are required, not 
optional. However, the ABA proposal was correct in rejecting this 
concept, which would still leave West with monopolistic power by 
being able to control when their parallel citation was "issued" for 
current decisions, and by then timing their electronic releases to 
provide more "complete" versions to customers. It would also negate 
one of the primary advantages of the ABA proposal, i.e., having a 
complete official citation at the time of issuance of the opinion.  

     I wholeheartedly urge you to endorse the ABA proposal for the 
Federal courts. 

Michael L. Prigoff, Esq.