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.