seiu_sb 682 memo

1

MEMORANDUM

To: MichelleCastro

From: AlecBahramipour

Date: August12,2015

Re: BackgroundoncourtprivatizationforSB682(Leno)

Purpose

TheinformationwasrequestedtoprovidecontextforSB682:TheTrialCourtEmploymentProtectionandGovernanceAct(Leno).

ResearchQuestionArestatesoutsideofCaliforniaprivatizingcourtfunctions(i.e.courtfilings,jurymanagement,andcourtreporting)?Whathavebeentheresultsofprivatization?

ShortAnswerYes,manyotherstateshaveprivatizedstatecourtfunctions.Courtsacrossthecountryhavebegunusingprivate,third-partyvendorstosupportorcarryouttheircourtfiling,jurymanagement,andcourtreportingfunctions.Insomecases,theprivatizationofthesefunctionshasledtotheintroductionofcourthousetechnology,whichhasincreasedefficiencyandreducedcosts.But,privatizationhasalsoraisedconcernsaboutaccesstojustice,thequalityofcourtservices,andtheactualamountofsavings.

ResearchFindings

IntroductionPrivatizationisoccurringinstatecourthousesacrossthenation.Privatizationiswhenpublicsector(government)workistransferredtotheprivatesector.Inthiscontext,privatizationoccurswhenapublic-sectorcourtemployee’sworkisgiventoaprivate-sectorcompanyoranindividual,suchasacontractemployee.Severalcorecourtfunctionslikecourtfilings,jurymanagement,andcourtreportingthathavetraditionallybeendonein-housearenowbeingcarriedoutbycontractemployeesandoutside,third-partyvendors.Rapidcaseloadgrowthanddecliningrevenueshaveforcedstatecourtstodomorewithless.Budgetcutstothejudiciaryacrossthecountryhaveledcourtadministratorstolayoffcourtworkers,freezenewhiring,andlookforotherwaystoreduceoperatingexpenses.Asacost-cuttingmeasure,manystatecourtshaveeliminatedfull-timepositionsandoutsourcedtheirlaborneedstocontractemployees.Seekingtoincreaseefficiencywhilereducingcosts,manycourtshavealsointroducednewtechnologyintothecourthouse,oftenoperatedandmanagedbyoutsidevendors.Theimpactofcourtprivatizationonthejusticesystem,courtemployees,andthegeneralpublicisdifficulttoassesswithoutacomprehensivestudyorextensivedataoncourtprivatization.However,currentacademicliterature,newsstories,andinternalcourtreportsprovideanecdotalevidence,whichsuggeststhatcourtprivatizationcanbeproblematic.Threeconcernsstandoutinouranalysis:1)actualcost,2)qualityofservices,and3)accesstojustice.Theinformationwefoundraisesquestionsaboutthe

2

actualsavingsofhavingaprivatepartyprovidecourtservices,aswellasthecostsassociatedwithjobsthatdonotprovidestablewagesandbenefits.Anotherconcerniswhetherthepublicreceivesbetteroratleastthesamequalityofservicefromthecourtswhenfunctionsareprivatized.Andfinally,privatizationcanthreatenaccesstojusticewhencourtservicesbecomelessaccessibletopersonsofdiversebackgrounds(racial,ethnic,linguistic,low-income,disabled,andetc.).ThreeStateCourtFunctionsThisresearchmemoexaminestheextentandresultsorimpactofprivatizationonthreecourtfunctions(i.e.courtfilings,jurymanagementsystems,andcourtreportingservices)throughouttheUnitedStates.1Wefocusedonthesethreefunctionsbecausetheyarecoreservicesthatthecourthastraditionallyprovidedthroughin-houseemployees,andwefoundenoughdatatoprovideanationalpicture.Toanalyzetheextentofprivatization,welookedforinformationthatshowedwho,courtemployees,privatecompanies,orindividuals,werecarryingouteachcourtfunction.Toassesstheresultsofprivatizationonstatecourtbudgets,courtstaff,taxpayers,andthepublic,welookedforstoriesandreportsthatmightdiscusstheseimpacts.Below,weprovideadescriptionofeachcourtfunction,alongwithagraphandatablethatshowstheextentofprivatization.Tounderstandsomeoftheimpactsofprivatizationandthequestionsitraises,weincludeanecdotalevidencethatdescribesthespecificexperiencesofdifferentstatesinprivatizingthesecourtfunctions.1.CourtFilingsIneverylegalproceeding,partiesfilepaperworkwiththecourt.Courtfilingistheprocessinwhichlitigantssubmittheirclaimsthroughpetitions,legalforms,orotherdocumentstothecourtforconsideration.Traditionally,anin-house,courtclerkreceives,reviews,approves,andmanagesthispaperwork.Today,somecourtsallowlitigantstofilethesedocumentselectronically(e-filing).Thirty-sevencourtshavealsointroducedelectroniccasemanagementsystemtechnologytotrytomakethisprocessmoreefficient.2Whiletheintroductionoftechnologyisnotperseaformofprivatization,e-filingandelectroniccasemanagementsystemsoftendoleadtooutside,third-partyvendorsbeingcontractedtotakeoverworkthatwaspreviouslydonebycourtemployees.Ascaseloadsincrease,sodothenumberofdocumentsthatneedtobeprocessedandmanaged.Yet,fewadditionalcourtclerkshavebeenhiredforthispurpose.Instead,courtshavehiredprivatecompaniestotakeoverthisresponsibility.Graph1:CaseManagementSystemsinStateCourts,below,providesanationalpictureofcasemanagementsystemsinstatecourts.Asthegraphshows,somecourtsadministertheirowncasemanagementsystem(“In-House”),whileotherscontractoutimplementationandmaintenance(“ThirdParty”).Insomestates,thetypeofcasemanagementsystemuseddiffersbycourtlocationswithinthestate.Thesestateshavebothin-houseandthird-partycasemanagementsystems(“Both”).Overall,morestatesuseanin-house,casemanagementsystemthanathird-partysystem.However,bycombiningthenumberofstatesthatusethird-partyvendorswiththosethatusebothin-houseand

1Inourresearch,wefounddataforthesefunctionsfor48states,butsimilardataforMontanaandMinnesotawereunavailable,sothesestateswereexcludedfromtheanalysis.2S.Strickland,R.Schauffler,R.LaFountain&K.Holt.NationalCenterforStateCourts.9January2015.Web.4August2015.<www.ncsc.org/sco>.

3

third-partyvendors,wefindthatamajorityofstateshaveprivatizedcasemanagementsystemsinatleastonestatecourthouse.

Table1:CourtFillinginStateCourts,below,providesstate-specificinformationoncourtfilingprocedures.The“E-Filing”columnshowswhetherthestateallowse-filingofcourtdocuments.The“CaseManagementSystem(CMS)”columnshowsstatesthatuseanelectroniccasemanagementsystem.ThethirdcolumnshowsthetypeofCMSusedineachstate.Thenextsectionincludesanecdotalevidenceforthestateshighlightedinthetablebelow.

Table1:CourtFilingsinStateCourts States E-Filing CaseManagementSystem(CMS) WhatSystemisUsedforaCMS?Alabama Yes Yes BothAlaska Yes Yes ThirdPartyArizona Yes Yes ThirdPartyArkansas Yes Yes ThirdPartyCalifornia No No -

Connecticut Yes Yes In-HouseDelaware Yes Yes BothFlorida Yes No -Georgia Yes No -Hawaii No Yes BothIdaho No Yes ThirdPartyIllinois Yes No -Indiana Yes Yes ThirdPartyIowa Yes Yes BothKansas Yes Yes ThirdParty

17

13

7

0

5

10

15

20

In-House ThirdParty Both

Num

bero

fStates

TypeofCaseManagmentSystem

Graph1:CaseManagementSystemsinStateCourts

Source:NationalCenterforStateCourts

4

Kentucky No Yes In-HouseLouisiana No Yes BothMaine No Yes In-HouseMaryland No Yes In-HouseMassachusetts No No -Michigan Yes Yes BothMinnesota - - -Mississippi Yes No -Missouri Yes Yes ThirdPartyMontana - - -Nebraska Yes Yes In-HouseNevada Yes Yes ThirdPartyNewHampshire No Yes ThirdPartyNewJersey Yes Yes In-HouseNewMexico Yes Yes BothNewYork Yes Yes BothNorthCarolina Yes Yes In-HouseNorthDakota Yes Yes ThirdPartyOhio No No -Oklahoma No No -Oregon Yes Yes ThirdPartyPennsylvania Yes Yes In-HouseRhodeIsland No Yes ThirdPartySouthCarolina No Yes In-HouseSouthDakota Yes Yes ThirdPartyTennessee No No -

Utah Yes Yes In-HouseVermont Yes Yes In-HouseVirginia No Yes In-HouseWashington Yes Yes In-HouseWestVirginia Yes No -Wisconsin Yes Yes In-HouseWyoming No Yes In-HouseAnecdotalEvidence:CourtFilingsInourresearch,wefoundanecdotalevidencethatsuggeststheimpactofprivatizingcourtfilings.Oursourcesincludenewsstories,academicjournals,internalcourtreports,andotherpublications.Forthestateshighlightedinthetableabove,wefoundqualitativeinformationthatconsiderstheexperiencesofstatecourtswiththird-partyvendors.Forexample,Coloradointroducedaprivatized,e-filingsystemtorespondtobudgetcutsandavoidadeclineinthequalityofcourtservices.LexisNexiswasgivencontrolofstatewidee-filing.Courthouse


5

Newsdescribesthisarrangementasa“truecashcow.”3Statelawrequiredlitigantstousetheprivatized,e-filingsystemtosubmitofficialcourtdocuments.AstheNationalCenterforStateCourtsexplains,e-filingandcasemanagement“wereimplementedpriortostaffreduction…[tohelplimitthe]negativeimpactofstafflayoffsandshorterhoursatcourtlocations.”4Inreality,theintroductionoftechnologycontributedtoadeclineinthequalityofservicesanddecreasedaccesstojustice.LexisNexischargedexorbitantfeesforfilingandservingdocumentselectronically.LexisNexisthen“sold[accessto]thesamedocumentsanddatabacktolawyers.”5Inpracticalterms,thepublicandpresswereshutout.Privatizationlimitedaccesstopublicrecords.TheColoradojudiciaryeventually“retookcontrolofpubliccourtrecordsfromtheinternationalpublishingconglomerateafteracloseandbitterly-foughtlegislativebattle.”6

Texasisanotherexample.StatecourtsinTexasareencouraged,butnotrequired,toparticipateinastatewide,e-filingsystem.A2003TexasBarJournalarticledefinesthestate’se-filingsystem,knownasTexasOnline,as“anelectronicpostofficethatdeliversdocumentstoclerks…[and]allowsattorneys[to]filedocumentsviaane-filingserviceprovider.”7ATexascourtclerkexplainedtheadvantagesofane-filingsystem,“wecanofferattorneysextendedhoursofaccesstocases…[and]reducetheircostsforprinting,copyingandmailing.”8However,thebenefitswerenotasgoodaspromised.AsJustiaLawBlogsummarizes,LexisNexischargeshighfeesfore-filingservices,makingthelegalprocesslessaccessible.Recently,inaclassactionlawsuitagainstLexisNexis,attorneysfortheplaintiff“allegedthatthefeesamountedtoapolltaxandadenialofdueprocessandequalprotection.”9Asthearticlefurtherexplains,LexisNexischargesaseven-dollarfilingfeeforalldocuments,aneight-dollarserviceschargefordocumentsfiledonline,andaten-dollarfeeforapaperinvoice.Whileturningahugeprofit,LexisNexisonlypaidtheTexasjudiciaryadollarforeachfiling.Theconvenienceofe-filinghascomeatthecostofaccessibility.WhileTexasOnlinemayhaveimprovedthequalityofcourtservices,italsoseemstohavereducedaccesstojustice.

2.JuryManagementSystemIntheAmericanlegalsystem,adefendantisentitledtotrialbyjury.Thecourtsareresponsibleforsummoning,screening,andselectingjurorsfortrial.Thisprocessiscalledjurymanagement.Traditionally,full-timecourtemployeeswererequiredtomanagejurors.Today,courtsusejurymanagementtechnologytoexpeditethisprocess.TheNationalCenterforStateCourtsdefineselectronicjurymanagementasthe“processofmergingandpurgingforacomprehensivejurysourcelist,whichproducesajurysummons,awebportalforjuryqualification,ajuryinquiry,andarandom

3Dinzeo,Maria."TechGoldRushStrikesCaliforniaCourts."CourthouseNewsService.23Oct.2013.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/10/23/62302.htm>.4"COSCABudgetSurveyResponses."NCSCLibraryECollection.NationalCenterforStateCourts,30Nov.2011.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/InformationandResources/BudgetResourceCenter/budget_survey_121811.ashx>.5Supra,Note3.6Ibid.7Urban,Steven."StateofTexasDebutsE-FilingSystem."TheWestLawFirm.TheTexasBarJournal,1Oct.2003.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://www.westfirm.com/efiling.html>.8"ElectronicFilingComestoCountyCourtsSystem."HoustonHerald,13July2015.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://www.houstonherald.com/news/electronic-filing-comes-to-county-courts-system/article_6b4dd112-2976-11e5-b926-d71deab7796c.html>.9Minick,Courtney."LexisTexas:PrivatizingAccesstoPublicCourts."JustiaLawBlog.4Feb.2011.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://lawblog.justia.com/2011/02/04/lexistexas-privatizing-access-to-public-courts/>.

6

selectionofcourtroomjurypools.”10Sofar,thirty-fivestateshaveintroducedelectronicjurymanagementsystems.11Introducingtechnologyisnotnecessarilyaformofprivatization.Somecourtshaveintroducedanelectronicjurymanagementsystemthatisoperatedinhousebycourtstaff.However,manystatecourtshavehiredoutside,third-partycontractorstooperatejurymanagementsystems.Thus,theintroductionofelectronicjurymanagementsystemscanbeaformofprivatization.Graph2:JuryManagementSystemsinStateCourts,below,providesanationalpictureofjurymanagementsystemsinstatecourts.Somecourtsadministertheirownjurymanagementsystem(“In-House”),whileotherscontractoutimplementationandmaintenance(“ThirdParty”).Insomestates,thetypeofjurymanagementsystemsuseddiffersbycourtlocationswithinthestate(“Both”).Thisgraphshowsthatmorestatesuseanin-house,jurymanagementsystemthanathird-partysystem.However,amajorityofstates(twenty-nine“ThirdParty”&“Both”tosixteen“In-House”)haveprivatizedjurymanagementsystemsinatleastonestatecourthouse.

Table2:JuryManagementSystemsinStateCourtsprovidesstate-specificinformationonjurymanagementtechnology.The“JuryManagementSystem”columnshowswhetherastateusesanelectronicjurymanagementsystem.The“WhatSystemisUsed?”columnshowswhoadministersthestate’sjurymanagementsystem.Thenextsectionincludesanecdotalevidenceforthestateshighlightedinthetablebelow.

10"E-JurorStudyofE-JurorinIowaandUtah."NationalCenterforStateCourts,2009.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/AboutUs/Committees/JTC/PODCaseStudyE-JurortoLISTSERV11-17-10.ashx>.11Supra,Note2.

16 15

4

0

5

10

15

20

In-House ThirdParty Both

Num

bero

fStates

TypeofJuryManagmentSystem

Graph2:JuryManagementSystemsinStateCourts


7

Table2:JuryManagementSystemsinStateCourts States ElectronicJMS WhatSystemisUsed?Alabama Yes In-HouseAlaska Yes ThirdPartyArizona Yes ThirdPartyArkansas Yes ThirdPartyCalifornia No -Colorado Yes In-HouseConnecticut Yes In-HouseDelaware Yes ThirdPartyFlorida Yes In-HouseGeorgia No -Hawaii Yes ThirdPartyIdaho No -Illinois No -Indiana No -Iowa Yes ThirdPartyKansas Yes ThirdPartyKentucky Yes In-HouseLouisiana No -Maine No -

Massachusetts Yes In-House/ThirdPartyMichigan Yes In-HouseMinnesota - -Mississippi No -Missouri Yes ThirdPartyMontana - -Nebraska Yes In-HouseNevada No -

NewJersey Yes In-HouseNewMexico Yes ThirdPartyNewYork Yes In-HouseNorthCarolina Yes ThirdPartyNorthDakota Yes ThirdPartyOhio No -

Oregon Yes In-House

8

Pennsylvania No -RhodeIsland Yes In-HouseSouthCarolina Yes In-HouseSouthDakota Yes In-HouseTennessee No -Texas Yes In-House/ThirdPartyUtah Yes In-HouseVermont Yes ThirdPartyVirginia Yes In-House/ThirdPartyWashington No -WestVirginia Yes ThirdPartyWisconsin Yes In-HouseWyoming Yes In-House

AnecdotalEvidence:JuryManagementSystemWhenitcomestoanecdotalevidenceontheimpactofjurymanagementsystemprivatization,theresultsappeartobemorepositivethane-filingandelectroniccasemanagement.Theexampleswefoundshowthatanelectronicjurymanagementsystemcanbebothefficientandcosteffective.InMaryland,statecourtsintroducedanelectronic,third-partyjurymanagementsystem.AstheBaltimoreSunexplains,courtofficialspurchasednewsoftwaretostreamlinethejurymanagementprocess.12Thisnewsoftwaregivesjurorstheoption“foronlinepostponementsandformfilingandautomatesalotofthecheck-inprocedure,which[speeds]thingsalong…sotrialscanstartontime.”13Thisnewsoftwareismoreefficientthanpriormanualjurymanagementprocedures.NewHampshirealsousesanelectronic,third-partyjurymanagementsystem.Statecourtsfoundthat“morethanjustreducingpaperandpostagecosts,theonlineprocessissavingjudges,triallawyersandcourtstaffsignificantamountsoftime”14Thissystemeliminatestediousandtime-consumingtasks,creatingbettertimemanagementopportunitiesforcourtemployees.Forexample,inoneyear,“some19,903summonsletters[were]mailedtojurorsfromacentralizedprintingservice...that's19,903envelopesthatdidn’thavetobestuffedbythestaffatthelocaltrialcourts.”15Jurorsalsofoundthenewsystemmoreconvenient.Infact,jurorscancompletetheonline,screeningquestionnairefromhome,alocallibrary,oratdedicatedcomputerterminalsineachSuperiorCourtlocation."16

12Bishop,Tricia."BaltimoreTriesNewJurySoftwaretoIncreaseAttendance."TheBaltimoreSun,31Mar.2012.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-31/news/bs-md-ci-jury-system-20120331_1_juror-appreciation-week-jury-duty-software>.13Ibid.14"NewHampshireJudicialBranchNewsRelease."NewHampshireJudicialBranchNewsRelease.JudicialBranch,NewHampshire,4Aug.2014.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://www.courts.state.nh.us/press/2014/jury.htm>.15Ibid.16Ibid.


9

InOklahoma,ClevelandCountyDistrictCourtwasthefirsttousethenewjurymanagementsystem.17AjournalistfortheMuskogeePhoenixwrote,“Thissystemallowssummonsestobemailedfromacentralautomatedmailingservice,therebysavingcostsonpostageandstafftimepreviouslyneededtoprintandmailsummonsesfromindividualcounties.”18Thejurymanagementsystemalsooptimizedthejurycheck-inprocess.StatecourtsinOklahomahaveusedthesoftwaretoreplacefull-timeemployees.AdistrictcourtclerkinMuskogeeCountyexplains:“Weusuallyhavetohavefivepeopleupstairstocheckpeoplein.Ittookaboutanhourandahalf.[Thenewsystem]isimmediate.”193.CourtReportingCourtreportingistheprocessofcreatingaverbatimrecordoflegalproceedings.Astenographer,orcourtreporter,isresponsibleforproducingtheofficialcourtrecord.Somestatecourtshavereplacedstenographerswithdigitalrecordingtechnology,whichrangesfromasimpletaperecordertomultiple,motion-sensitive,videocameras.Otherstateshavestoppedprovidingcourt-employedstenographerstolitigantsinminorlegaldisputes.Ifanofficialcourtrecordisrequiredinaminordispute,litigantsmusthireathird-partystenographer.Severalstatesnowconsiderdigitalrecordingstobeofficialcourtrecordsandhaveeliminatedstenographersalltogether.Moststatesusethird-partyvendorstoinstallandservicedigitalrecordingtechnology.Inbothcircumstances,thecourtshaveprivatizedcourt-reportingservices,byusingeithercontractemployeesorthird-partytechnologythatreplacescourtstaff.Graph3:CourtReportinginStateCourts,below,providesanationalpictureofthetypeofcourtreportingservicesusedinstatecourts.Coloradoistheonlystatethatrequirestheusedofacourt-employedstenographer(“Manual”).Sevenstatesrelyentirelyondigitalrecordingtechnologytocreatetheofficialcourtrecord(“Digital”).Thevastmajorityofstates,however,usebothstenographersanddigitalrecordingtechnology(“Both”).Inthesestates,stenographersareoftenassignedtocomplexlawsuitsthatmayrequirealegalappeal.Digitalrecordingtechnologyisalsousedtosupplementtheworkofastenographer.Somecourtsinrurallocationsmustusedigitalrecordingtechnologybecausetherearetoofewlicensedstenographersintheregion.Thisgraphsuggeststhatmoststateshaveintroducedcourtreportingtechnologyinsomecapacity.

17Lawson,Kandice."JuryNotificationSystemUpgradeComing."MuskogeePhoenix.3Feb.2015.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/news/local_news/jury-notification-system-upgrade-coming/article_a3421580-ab66-11e4-8188-5f45263ca32c.html>.18Ibid.19Ibid.

10

Table3:CourtReportinginStateCourtsprovidesstate-specificinformationaboutcourtreportingservices.The“CourtReporting”columnshowsthetypeofcourtreportingserviceusedineachstate.Thenextcolumnshowswhopreparestherecord.Thiscouldbeacourt-employedstenographer(“CourtReporter”),anothercourtemployee(“Staff”),oracontractemployee(“Contractor”).Thischartalsoshowswhoownstherecord.Thenextsectionincludesanecdotalevidenceforthestateshighlightedinthetablebelow.

Table3:CourtReportinginStateCourts States CourtReporting WhoPreparestheRecord? WhoOwnstheRecord?Alabama Both CourtReporter CourtAlaska Digital Staff CourtArizona Both Staff/CourtReporter CourtArkansas Both CourtReporter CourtCalifornia Both Staff CourtColorado Manual Contractor/CourtReporter CourtConnecticut Both CourtReporter CourtDelaware Both Staff/CourtReporter Court/RecorderFlorida Both CourtReporter CourtGeorgia Both Staff/CourtReporter CourtHawaii Both Staff/CourtReporter CourtIdaho Both Staff/CourtReporter CourtIllinois Both CourtReporter CourtIndiana Digital CourtReporter CourtIowa Both CourtReporter CourtKansas Both CourtReporter Court

Louisiana Both CourtReporter Court

17

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

Manual Digital Both

Num

bero

fStates

TypeofCourtReporRng

Graph3:CourtReporRnginStateCourts


11

Maine Both Staff/CourtReporter CourtMaryland Both Staff CourtMassachusetts Both Contractor/CourtReporter Court/RecorderMichigan Both CourtReporter Court/RecorderMinnesota - - -Mississippi Both CourtReporter RecorderMissouri Both CourtReporter Court/RecorderMontana - - -Nebraska Both Staff/CourtReporter Court/RecorderNevada Both Contractor/CourtReporter CourtNewHampshire Digital Staff Court

NewMexico Both CourtReporter CourtNewYork Both Contractor/CourtReporter CourtNorthCarolina Both Staff/CourtReporter CourtNorthDakota Both CourtReporter CourtOhio Both CourtReporter CourtOklahoma Both Staff/CourtReporter Court/Recorder

Pennsylvania Both CourtReporter CourtRhodeIsland Both Staff/CourtReporter CourtSouthCarolina Both CourtReporter RecorderSouthDakota Both CourtReporter RecorderTennessee Both Staff CourtTexas Both CourtReporter Recorder

Vermont Digital Staff CourtVirginia Both CourtReporter Court/RecorderWashington Both CourtReporter RecorderWestVirginia Both Staff/CourtReporter Court/RecorderWisconsin Both CourtReporter CourtWyoming Digital Staff/CourtReporter Court/Recorder

AnecdotalEvidence:CourtReportingTheanecdotalevidencewefoundshowsthatincertaincasesdigitalrecordingtechnologyimprovesthequalityofserviceandcutcosts.However,inothercases,thistechnologyislessefficientbecauseitismoretime-consumingtofindinformationinadigitalrecordthanawrittenrecord,anditcanmalfunction.Intheseinstances,fixingtheproblemisexpensiveandcreatesdelaysinlegalproceedings.AGovernmentTechnologyMagazinearticlesuggeststhatdigitalrecordingtechnologysavesmoney:“AsalariedNewJerseystenographerwillcostacourtbetween$50,000and$60,000peryear…asopposed


12

toa$5,000peryearcosttosetupandmaintaindigitalrecordingequipment.”20In2009,Utahintroduceddigitalrecordingtechnologyandeliminatedthecourtreporterpositionentirely.Asthearticlefurtherexplains,“Utahhassavedmorethan$1.3millionand…eliminatednearly50full-timepositions”21Additionally,thesecourts“cutthetimefromtranscriptrequesttodeliveryfromanaverageof138daysto12daysforcasesnotonappeal.”22Accordingtothearticle,since2009,Utahhassavedmoneyandimprovedthequalityofservice.Thearticlegoesontostatethatdigitalrecodingtechnologyhasprovided“non-fiscalbenefits,likespeedingupthetimeittakestocertifytherecord.”23However,theexperienceinotherstatesshowsthatdigitalreportingisnotalwaysfasterandmoreefficient.InKentucky,videorecordingsofstatecourtproceedingsareconsideredofficialcourtrecords.Astudydoneofthepublicdefender’sofficeinKentuckyfoundthat“staffnumberswereincreasedby50%tokeepupwiththeworkloadcreatedbyvideotaperecords”24Managinghoursoffootageischallengingandtime-consuming.Awrittenrecordismucheasiertonavigatethanadigitalrecording.Theintroductionoftechnologymayrequireadditionalemployeestorespondtotheheavierworkload.Furthermore,digitalrecordingtechnologyhasmalfunctionedinKentucky,delayingcourtproceedings.GovernmentTechnologyMagazinenotes,“AjudgeinJeffersonCountyhadtorehearamurdercaseafterthecourt'sdigitalrecordingsystemmalfunctioned.”25Thiswasnotanisolatedincident.Infact,asacolumnistfortheCourier-Journalexplains,audiorecordingequipmenthasfailed“inseveralcourtrooms,meaningdozens,andperhapshundreds,ofhearingshavebeensilentlyrecorded,withnowayforattorneys,defendantsorvictimstoreviewexactlywhatwassaid.”26Asthisarticlesuggests,digitalrecordingtechnologyisapoorsubstituteforstenographers.Digitalrecordingtechnologyseemstohaveimprovedthequalityofserviceinsomecases,butthisnascenttechnologyhasmalfunctionedandmayincreasetheworkloadforemployees.Theproblemoftechnologicalfailureseemstobewidespread.AreportfoundseveralinstanceoftechnologyproblemswithdigitalcourtreportinginOregon,including“onehourofmissingkeywitnesstestimonyina2003murdercase;aretrialofa2002complexcivilenvironmentalcasebecausetheDR[digitalrecorder]failedtorecordproceedingsontoaCD;attorneyshandlingcriminalappealssayingtheirclients’rightsarecompromisedbyinaudibleportionsofrecordings;andattorneyshiringtheirowncourtreportersforfearofaninaccuratecourtrecord.”27Inanotherexample,aninternalNewJerseycourtreportfoundthat“amistrialcausedbyacourtroomrecordingfailuremayhavecostamedicalmalpracticeplaintiffinEssexCountyupto$560,000ofahigh-lowsettlement,anditisstirringcallsfor

20Clark,Maggie."CanDigitalRecordingsSaveMoneyforCourts?"GovernmentTechnologyMagazine,4Sept.2012.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Can-Digital-Recordings-Save-Money-for-Courts.html>.21Ibid.22Ibid.23Ibid.24"CourtReportingVersusDigitalRecording."KernLegalServices,Inc.,22May2013.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://www.kernlegal.com/blog/court-reporting-versus-digital-recording-infographic/>.25Supra,Note.20.26Riley,Jason."JeffersonCountyCourtVideoFailuresCauseTrials,HearingstoBeLost."Courier-Journal,3Sept.2010.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://www.mapcr.org/Resources/Documents/courierjournal.pdf>.27Crawford,Chris."ACostStudyoftheLegislativeAnalyst’sOfficeProposalToExpandUseofDigitalRecordinginCaliforniaCourts."JusticeServed,1June2009.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://www.cal-ccra.org/assets/documents/Crawford-DRexpansion2009.pdf>.

13

morecourtreportersinNewJerseycourts.”28Unreliabletechnologynotonlycompromisestheaccuracyofacourtrecord,butitalsodeniesaccesstojusticeandcanbeverycostly.ConclusionInthethreestatecourtfunctionsweexamined,privatizationofadministrativecourtfunctions(i.e.courtfilingsandjurymanagement)ishappeninginstatecourtacrossthecounty.Apossibleexplanationisaneffortbystatecourtstocutcostsandmodernize,whichhasledtoarapidincreaseintheintroductionoftechnology.Inanalyzingthethreecourtfunctions,technology,providedbyathird-partyvendor,haseitherreplacedemployeesorofferedacheaperalternativetohiringadditionalemployeesforcourtsdealingwithagrowingcaseload.Problemswithtechnologymayslowdowntherapidpaceofmodernization.Forexample,themalfunctioningofdigitalrecordingtechnologyhasraisedconcernsaboutitsabilitytoeffectivelyreplacehumanstenographerincreatinganaccuratecourtrecord.Theanecdotalevidenceraisesimportantquestionsandconsiderationsabouttheresultsofprivatization,butthisevidenceshouldnotbegeneralized.Afullofassessmentoftheimpactsofstatecourtprivatizationrequiresacomprehensivestudy.Thestudycouldexaminecourtadministrators’andthepublic’sviewsthroughaseriesofnationalsurveysandinterviewstounderstandhowcourtprivatizationhasaffectedthequalityofservices,accesstojustice,andcosts.Theanecdotalevidencewefound,suggestsinsomestatecourtsprivatizationhascutcostsandimprovedthequalityofcourtservices.Forexample,theprivatizationofjurymanagementsystemshassavedtimeandmoney.However,insomecasestechnicalandlogisticalproblemswithprivatizationcounterbalance,ifnotoutweigh,itspositiveeffects.Inseveralstates,digitalrecordingtechnologyhasmalfunctioned,andstatecourtswereforcedtospendadditionaltimeandmoneytoaddresstheproblem.Privatizationhasalsocausedlogisticalproblems,specificallywithcourtfilings.InColorado,thestaterequiredlitigantstousethee-filingsystem,administeredbyLexisNexis.LexisNexischargedexorbitantfeestoviewandfiledocumentselectronically,creatingatollroadanddenyingequalaccess.Widespreadprivatizationrevealsthepotentialdrawbacksoffocusingsolelyoncostsavingsandefficiency.Courtsshouldcontinuetoprioritizeequalaccesstojusticeandqualityservices.

28Crawford,Chris."AnAnalysisofCourtReportingandDigitalRecordingintheNevadaCourts."JusticeServed,19Feb.2011.Web.12Aug.2015.<http://nvcra.org/data/cms/uploadedfiles/file/forms/NevadaCRA-FullReportFinal021911.pdf>.