Communicating with the Public on the Internet

©American Bar Association republished with permission

By Donald E. Shelton, Circuit Judge* and Michael R. Arkfeld **

            Congested traffic, baby sitters, parking problems, frustrated drivers, long lines, wrong lines, being placed on telephone hold – just a few of the difficulties citizens experience daily as they attempt to use our justice system to protect their legal rights, or even to learn about it or to involuntarily participate in it as jurors. Media reports portray the court system as inaccessible and unresponsive at best to lazy or corrupt at worst. Today we have an opportunity to change this paradigm. We have the opportunity to ensure access to the justice system by using the Internet. 

So what is the Internet and what are the features that will enable the court to resolve citizens legal needs? The Internet is being touted as - and is - the most powerful communication tool of all times.  What makes this tool different and with more potential then the telephone or television?  The value of the Internet is the immense capability to interactively communicate with anyone inexpensively and exchange information using text, audio, graphics or video anytime, anywhere - and faster than real-time. Communication can be accomplished by electronic mail, sending or receiving computer files, interacting by voice, video conferencing, participating in various discussion areas and other tools.

Technically, the Internet is an international network of computers.  It links thousands of computer networks including businesses, governments, educational institutions, and individual users.  These links transport digital information from computer to computer until it reaches its final destination. They can provide the technical underpinnings to implement the day to day communication functions of the court with citizens.  Technology applications such as e-mail; listservs, newsgroups, world wide web, Extranets, Intranets, interactive voice mail, IRC (Internet relay chat), FTP (File Transfer protocol), computer telephony, shared computer databases and full text files, Document sharing software, document assembly, audio and video Internet software, video conferencing, and workgroup computing software all can be utilized to provide an interactive communication with the citizens we serve. 

Recently the National Center for State Courts under the direction of the Honorable Roger Warren hosted CTC6 – Court Technology Conference 6[i] – which resulted in the world’s largest gathering of legal personnel to learn, discuss and view the latest court technology.  Judge Warren said, “the Internet can offer court systems great opportunities.  The biggest challenge is to connect to the lawyer and the public.  Courts have tended to withdraw and stay above the fray in the past.  The Internet offers great promise and no other institution could benefit more than the courts from the Internet.”  As that conference demonstrated, some of these new methods of communication are already being implemented by courts – too few – but by some innovative courts.[ii]

Each of the courts spent a considerable amount of time planning and focusing upon the needs of the citizen and lawyers as they try to process cases through the court systems.  Many have developed low cost but extremely effective solutions to difficult court information and communication issues.  The following are some of the functional highlights of these and other web sites of merit.

·        Educating the Public About the Courts

While members of our profession bemoan the lack of understanding that that the public has for our judicial system, information and education about that system is generally left to the dry "civics" books and the sensationalizing media. An important basic function of a court web site is to make this information available directly from the courts to the public. Court web sites explain what the courts do and who does it. Judged the best court web site in the world, the North Dakota Supreme Court site describes the judicial system in plain language with attractive graphics that web users have come to expect.[iii] The Iowa Supreme Court has a similarly excellent informational site.[iv] The top trial court sites provide descriptions of the courts and court processes, including "who does what" explanations of court jurisdiction and functions.[v]   The San Diego Superior Court takes the graphics idea to another level with a "virtual tour" of the court that describes the functions of the judge, lawyers and other personnel.[vi]  Los Angeles offers a bi-lingual virtual tour.[vii]

·        Answering Citizen Questions

A number of courts have "FAQ" (computerese for "frequently asked questions")  features about the court system and setup. A few, like the Calhoun County Courts[viii] have used this technique to answer more substantive basic legal questions citizens have. We will begin to see the true value and interactive potential of court web sites with concepts such as The "Ask a Judge" section[ix] of  Florida's Ninth Circuit is expanded upon.   This web site provides one with an opportunity to email a question to a judge with the understanding that, if not against the judges’ code of ethics or concerning legal advice, you will receive a response.

·        Providing "Self-Help" Information

Trial judges unanimously agree that pro se litigants are a challenge at any level. Educating citizens better and earlier about their rights is a realistic approach to this situation. In that spirit,  many courts provide online information about the availability of small claims procedures and the "nuts and bolts" of those processes.[x] The 'handbook" of the Delaware Municipal Court not only walks the citizen through not small claims and landlord-tenant procedures, it provides printable forms the citizen can download for those processes.[xi] The Milwaukee Municipal Court makes traffic case forms available online in its "Forms" section.[xii] The federal court in the Northern District of Texas makes criminal pro se forms available online in its "Forms and Publications" section. [xiii] The Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix, Arizona has demonstrated innovative technological leadership in a number of ways, including its "Self-Service Center" offering not only self-help information and forms, but also links to attorneys and organizations who will " help you help yourself in Court".[xiv]

Courts sites are also used to direct citizens to non-court resources. These resources include mediation and other adr organizations and mechanisms.[xv] The Sacramento Superior Court provides online guidance to prepare families for divorce proceedings and to provide counseling information to parents.[xvi] Domestic violence information is the focus of part of the Delaware Municipal Court site, which includes being able to view current domestic violence convictions and personal protection orders online.[xvii]

·        Juror Information

One of the most valuable public uses of the Internet for Courts is communication with potential jurors.  A number of sites have juror handbooks or other juror orientation information.[xviii] This of course includes answers to basic questions about the mechanics of jury service, like where do I go?, how do I get there? how long will I be there? what should I wear? and so forth. It also is an opportunity to orient jurors, and educate the public generally, about the jury system and the role of jurors as finders of fact. The Florida Ninth Circuit site has a video jury orientation online and provides a daily online list of those jurors who are required to report the next business day.[xix]  The Delaware Municipal Court has a similar confirmation page and a juror questionnaire online as well.[xx] The Los Angeles Superior Court site[xxi] has a comprehensive juror page that incorporates online information with its computerized juror telephone process which uses an interactive voice response system.

·        Educating Children About the Courts

One of the most interesting legal educational uses of the Internet has been the development of pages that educate children about our court system. One site that has received significant publicity is the Law for Kids website.[xxii] This web site was funded by the Arizona State Bar Foundation and provides a lively interactive approach for children, and a resource for teachers, to understand law and the judicial processes. Courts have "Kids" pages as well.. Good examples can be found at the Connecticut Judicial branch "Kids Stuff"[xxiii], the Maricopa County "Kid's Korner"[xxiv], and the Florida Supreme Court "Kids' Court"[xxv].

·        Other Innovative Court Website Features

Los Angeles has an active community outreach program online. [xxvi]The San Diego Superior Court site has a searchable list of outstanding Marshall warrants[xxvii] and a recruitment page for volunteers to staff its Children's Waiting Room.[xxviii] You can watch live broadcasts of court session in Florida's Ninth Circuit[xxix] or in Delaware Municipal Court[xxx] or even be on the lookout for the Delaware City Police department's "10 Most Wanted"[xxxi]. You can tell in advance what your traffic fine is going to be at the Washtenaw Trial Court site[xxxii] or you can read the judge's benchbooks for family law and landlord tenant cases[xxxiii].  You can calculate child support online in Iowa[xxxiv] or Connecticut[xxxv]. You can see pictures of the judges and read their biographies on virtually all of the court web sites.[xxxvi]

Conclusion

Two way interactive communication with citizens can produce amazing results for the justice system.  Communication and the sharing of information tie our society together. We have made an important start but all court justice system processes by lawyers and judges must be reexamined to determine if technology and the Internet can be applied to increase affordable and timely access by our citizens. The courts cannot stand still since the Internet will not stand still for an evolutionary process of adaptation. The Internet is an opportunity to think at a new level and make a more accessible justice system for all.

*These views do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Justice.