Technology can be daunting. When most of us are considering an upgrade on something such as a phone or a TV, we can ask friends what they know, read Consumer Reports, or believe what the sales person tells us. Usually the worst case scenario is either being in over our heads, ending up with too much or too little of what we are looking for, or maybe being out a few hundred dollars. For courts, though, the scenario is much more serious, and the consequences can be dire. Budgets are limited, everything is evolving quickly, there is the matter of retrofitting with existing infrastructure, and with courts justice might be on the line. Here is one court’s story of how they upgraded their technology.
 
Mike Smith, the Court Technology Officer of the Fourth Judicial Circuit Florida in Jacksonville notes, “Technology is an industry that requires constant education.” At the same time, he says, “Florida Courts are currently in the midst of drastic change.” They are transitioning to paperless courts, a task that is driving the technology needs of all stakeholders. The move, when complete, will be realized in printing, copying, filing, and storage costs. (When Clark County, Nev., initiated a similar upgrade, the paper usage was reduced by 858,000 pages in the first three months alone.) Florida courts are also using Audio/Visual (AV) technology so evidence can be electronically submitted for presentation as PDF documents or digital pictures. Tablets are also being used more, and they finding both short- and long-term savings.
 
Chronologically, once a court has made a decision to upgrade, among the first steps is to decide to use vendors or internal personnel. The Fourth Judicial Circuit used both. Smith furthers that having a strong grasp on current and future technology is clearly important, so it is important to have good relationships with vendors who can assist in the development, strategies, and processes. There is also the matter that courts might have an idea of what they want but not be certain of the specifics or what technology is available, and vendors with the proper expertise can help clarify and achieve their goals. There is also the matter of upgrading and upkeep. “In the courtroom, we have state-of-the-art technology for evidence presentation and ADA equipment. We rely on a good partnership with our vendor to keep that equipment running.”
 
Home-grown App
The Court also selected a judicial branch viewer (JBV) that had been written in-house by the court technology officer in the Eighth Circuit of Florida. The JBV is how courts access electronic case information and interacts with the case maintenance systems (CMS). The decision to do so was based on the application that was already compliant with JBV standards in Florida. Since the system was home grown, the Court only needed to pay for programming changes so the application would work with the Clerk’s CMS.
 
There is also the consideration of how the technology will be used. When the Fourth Circuit began their first phase of electronic document filing, “The decision was made to limit the filings to a single point of entry.” It was a decision made on the recommendation of the Florida Courts Technology Commission, which is a group of judges, technology representatives, Clerks of Court, private attorneys, and other stakeholders. “That decision helped facilitate a smooth transition by limiting multiple projects and focusing assets to a single common purpose. Although these were not internal personnel, it represents how leveraging various resources can reach a common goal. That technology is used by all members of the legal community.”
 
One successful project, says Smith, was the incorporation of a 70-inch Sharp touchscreen for use with the Court’s existing infrastructure. The project spawned when old-school met new-school and attorneys who liked the evidence cart still preferred standing in front of their presentation “with blow-ups of pictures and drawing on butcher paper with a sharpie.” (They explained that it was important that the jury be looking at them during the presentation.) Says Smith, “It was the first time that the Sharp touchscreen technology had been adapted to that type of use.” He furthers that it is important to keep in mind that when people come into a court for jury duty or other involvement with the court, they often expect to interact with these technologies as they do in everyday life. “Since moving into the new courthouse, we have tried to stay in tune with the evidence presentation technology available.” James R. Holland II, a local attorney, told Smith, “You cannot turn on a television or computer without being fully aware that we are squarely in the digital age.  Audiences require information conveyed quickly, clearly and vividly.  Today's jurors have the same expectations.”
 
Selection Process
The selection process for technology requires anticipation and consideration. For example, Smith notes, in some areas there are few vendors who specialize in what the court is attempting to accomplish. The budget is always a consideration as well as how they affect manpower, hardware, and software, all of which factor into the selection process. “Other factors are timeliness, ability of the vendor or adapting internal process to accomplish the goal(s).“ They also had to consider the fact that they had switched platforms from desktop PCs to tablets and docking stations, a move that occurred two years before so that judges, magistrates, and other personnel could move from location to location without losing connectivity to their applications. The move resulted in a 40% overall reduction in the amount of devices needed. One of the deciding factors when it came to what to use was the need for a docking station so that users remained able to view documents side-by-side on a 24-inch monitor. Other factors included what applications were to be used. “Our applications are mainly MS-Windows based. That issue is changing as more applications become web-based.”
 
The Installation Process
Phased installation, says Smith, is key due to budget restraints, and ensuring that everything is properly vetted by testing it out before installing is crucial. “Technology cannot slow or impede court,” he says. Installation processes differ depending on the technology being utilized. On that matter, says Smith, “Most of these technologies are basically applications, so training is more on the forefront than installation.”
 
He furthers that because of having a limited staff, they must remain conscious of their commitment to projects that are particularly time consuming. “Installing new devices for example, is usually a slower process than what is considered ideal.” The priority is keeping everyone working. “When we hire staff we look for candidates that have a diverse background in IT. That helps to counter the issue of limited staffing.”
 
AV Advantages
The new and improved court has realized benefits. Since the court started requiring attorneys to file documents electronically, court cases are now available for staff and outside users to access. They are also searchable using key words.  Another improvement is that part of the minimum requirements of the JBV is tabbing and electronic signing/notarization of documents, a feature that saves time for the court and clerks. The JBV also allows for documents to be transmitted and signed electronically, which saves time in processing the documents as well as making it accessible to the public who can now accesses myriad amounts of information without having to physically go to the courthouse.
 
Smith ends on a note of advice. “Without reliable technology, it is safe to say that the 51 courtrooms, 57 hearing rooms, help desk, training, and testing could not be maintained by a staff of 4 IT professionals. The cost of technology should not cost court budgets to swell in the long term. It should immediately or eventually reap a savings. Technology should also provide an access value to the court system.” CT