Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project

[jmessing <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

What is described as the role of the Bar Association is not the practice in any jurisdiction I am aware of. The attorneys in the case are responsible for providing to all the other attorneys in the case the address by which they are to be served by mail.

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Dallas Powell <dpowell@tybera.com>
Date:  Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:05:50 -0700

>I sent this response directly to Rolly, but perhaps others may be interested
>in the message.
>
>> Rolly,
>>
>> The OXCI document refers to the document "Architecture Models, Business
>> decisions, and Interoperability Issues"
>> http://www.tybera.com/E-Filing%20Architecture%20Models%20and%20Issues.htm
>.
>> OXCI indicates that who ever implements OXCI needs to support all models
>> defined in this document.  That being the case, if you look at the last
>two
>> diagrams, (or the one I have included here) what those diagrams are saying
>> is that an attorney can install the exact same software the court
>installs,
>> that is, an EFSP and an EFM.  Therefor if two attorneys install this
>> software, they can then file, or serve documents onto each other.  In
>> addition, an attorney's client can use the EFSP provided by the attorney
>so
>> that the clients can file documents to the attorney.  Then, if
>corporations
>> install the software, they can begin to exchange, file, serve... documents
>> onto each other.  In reality, this model begins to create a spiders web of
>> installations with a complex method of managing how multiple EFM
>> installations control which EFSP installations can submit information to
>> each other, or even more specifically, what types of filings each
>authorized
>> EFSP can submit. to the various EFMs..  It suggests that when a Judge
>> creates a ruling, they can initiate a filing back to the participating
>> attorneys.   (Two way automation)  Although the diagram represents this
>> behavior, these concepts were not within the initial scope of original
>> document.  The original document was intended to demonstrate to the TC
>that
>> there are multiple designs by which a court could interact with attorneys.
>>
>> The model that is shown in the attached diagram is the architecture that
>is
>> being implemented in Utah Court Filing 1.1 implementation.  There are
>> attorneys and other state agencies preparing to install both an EFSP and
>EFM
>> at their locations.  However, it is my opinion that in order to sustain a
>> system that officially allows attorneys to serve each other it will become
>> the responsibility of the Bar Association to provide a registry for the
>> attorneys to indicate which attorneys support this method of  service.  In
>> the same fashion, it is the responsibility of the Bar Association to
>publish
>> the official mailing address to serve documents on another attorney, or in
>> the case of Corporations, it will be the responsibility of the Department
>of
>> Commerce to maintain a registry of companies who support the interface to
>be
>> served electronically since the DOC licenses and maintains a registry of
>> companies and official addresses.
>>
>> I really don't believe OXCI intended to extend their design this far, but
>> that is the intent of the diagram.
>>
>> Dallas
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "jmessing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>
>To: "Court Filing List" <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:17 PM
>Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
>
>
>> I agree with Roger and Rolly that electronic service by the courts or
>EFSP's is a probable incentive to lawyers, depending of course on how it is
>handled. I understand "service" in this context to exclude the initial step
>of filing of a complaint and se
>> rvice of a summons, which presents different issues.
>>
>> Service of paper pleadings by mail is a thankless chore to most lawyers.
>Eliminating it may immediately cut down the overhead of printing and mailing
>such documents by law firms, if no additional fees or very nominal ones are
>charged for the service.
>>
>> In my days of running the Pima County Justice Court small claims project,
>I was impressed with the return receipt service of process that the court
>effectuated by postal mail for the nominal sum of $3.50 per case. The
>litigants were not lawyers, admitte
>> dly, but the convenience and efficiency of the process was greatly
>appreciated by the public and went far in helping the popularity of the
>court, with or without electronic filing.
>>
>> Service effectuated directly between lawyers can also generate a most
>frustrating class of dispute that service through the court or an EFSP may
>eliminate. Without telling tales out of school, consider the anectode of the
>lawyer who is often suspected o
>> f using the stamp of a postage meter in a mysterious way to make it appear
>that a document was sent by US mail earlier than it really was. Or its
>cousin that relates the practices of a crafty lawyer who is known in a
>community for turning off the fax at
>>  times to stymie the use of faxed service of documents by an opponent. I
>imagine the use of junk email filters could be the next generation of
>devices lawyers could creatively put to use in such situations. Taking
>service out of the hands of the lawyers
>>  and putting it with the courts or EFSP's could itself be a big selling
>point to lawyers who have grown weary of such practices.
>>
>> I also appreciate the fine efforts of Mr. Cabral and his group in
>effectuating a very difficult task. I think the report was extremely
>professional and well-done.
>>
>> A common thread that I extract from the two previous comments is whether
>we are in a position yet to give a complete and meaningful response about
>OXCI. As Rolly points out, we do not have the schema, and the report had to
>fashion a crude prototype usin
>> g XML Spy for its working assumptions. Also, the CMS-API workgroup has not
>completed a piece that OXCI requires and assumes will be in place, which is
>the CMS-API. I do not blame anyone for this occurence. Some of the problems
>are hopefully being worked
>>  out. In the absence of  the API, I can only guess if the overall system
>as envisioned can be made to work as intended.
>>
>> I am also unclear if the methods already used by some vendors will be
>facilitated or hindered by the envisioned architecture. I think their frank
>input is indispensible, and I would prefer to hear the results of Dallas
>Powell's interoperability subcommi
>> ttee on the differences in filing techniques between various vendors
>before finalizing any evaluation of the OXCI study. It seems that
>BearingPoint.com has certain methods that are being used in Texas; Tybera
>has others that are used in Utah, still othe
>> rs may be used by Mo Abdulaziz' court in Arizona; and there may be others
>from LexisNexis in Colorado. Perhaps the cataloging of the similarities and
>differences will better arm us with specifics as a basis for a meaningful
>response to the OXCI group.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:42 AM
>> To: 'Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov'; 'rlchambers@smithcurrie.com';
>'legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org'
>> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
>>
>>
>> At Tom's suggestion, I'll speak up about how the "Standards for Electronic
>Filing Processes" treats service of filings. In the section on "Court
>Rules," "Standard 1.2A Service of Filings on Opposing Parties" (pages 34-35
>of the February 26, 2003 version
>> ) identifies electronic service as an "important incentive for lawyers'
>use of electronic filing." Further, it says "the efficiency of the legal
>process will be enhanced by having service performed by the electronic
>filing process."
>>
>>
>>
>> The corresponding "Functional Standard 3.14: Service and Notice," (page
>91) in Subfunction 3.14.1 notes that providing this service is optional, not
>mandatory: "It is optional for each electronic filing system to provide for
>electronic notice and servic
>> e. When a court opts for this functionality, the system must provide a
>proof of service record and a record of who is served electronically and who
>must still be served traditionally."
>>
>>
>>
>> The document from which this information is taken can be found at
>http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/Standards/Standards.htm#ElectronicFilingPro
>cesses.
>>
>>
>>
>> Though not directly involved with the group who have been developing OXCI,
>I will say I didn't expect OXCI to embody many, if any, of the optional
>functions and processes, including the electronic service function. This is
>not to say it isn't as importa
>> nt as Rolly indicates. In fact, his calling it out helps me understand
>even more clearly how service and related functions (e.g., document
>exchanges not directly related to a filing) are probably going to be needed
>if we are to get substantial law firm
>> participation in our e-filing systems.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger Winters
>>
>> Electronic Court Records Manager
>>
>> King County
>> Department of Judicial Administration
>>
>> 516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
>>
>> Seattle, Washington 98104
>>
>> V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
>>
>> roger.winters@metrokc.gov
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov [mailto:Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:22 AM
>> To: rlchambers@smithcurrie.com; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
>>
>>
>>
>> Rolly,
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't want to speak for MTG, but I do know something about the intent of
>what they submitted.
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the problems with the OXCI project is that they don't want to set
>standards, they also don't want to do things that are obviously undesirable
>from an architectural viewpoint, and they don't want to be any more
>incompatible with projects building
>> on CF 1.1 than necessary.  MTG attempted to compromise by absolutely
>minimizing the changes necessary to get from Court Filing 1.1 to a schema
>that is consistent with a web services approach to messaging.  We jokingly
>called this "Light Blue" because we
>>  knew the TC would want to go further with the real Blue.  Specifically,
>you would probably want to take better advantage of schema features, as you
>propose below, at the expense of backward compatibility with CF 1.1.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think anyone involved with OXCI envisions implementing service
>outside of the core architecture of Legal XML transactions.  If that is not
>clear from the document, then we will need to clarify that for potential
>OXCI vendors.  I believe an appro
>> ach implementing service and other notice types through the core component
>set over the Internet, as opposed to separate noticing via email, is
>recommended by the COSCA/NACM national standard for e-filing.  If I'm wrong
>about this, others involved in cr
>> eating that standard should speak up.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim Cabral from MTG is the actual author of the document, so he can better
>respond to your specific suggestions.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chambers, Rolly [mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:55 PM
>> To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
>> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
>>
>>
>>
>> I commend MTG and its contribution to the TC of the OXCI Electronic Filing
>Manager Architecture. The design decisions have been thoughtfully considered
>and sound choices have been made.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have one question/comment regarding the architectural piece and a
>handful of comments/thoughts concerning the proposed Court Filing XML
>schema.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Architecture focuses on filings with a court appropriately enough, but
>it was not clear how or whether the architecture also supports the service
>of filings by a filer on other parties or their attorneys. Procedural rules
>require me, as a lawyer, to
>>  send (i.e. serve) other parties in a case with copy of pleadings,
>motions, or other filings that I submit to a court. Does the OXCI
>architecture support this service function or does it assume that lawyers
>will submit filings to a court electronically
>> via applications implementing the proposed architecture but then serve
>copies of the filings on each other by some other means such as regular
>mail, hand-delivery, or email?
>>
>>
>>
>> A related question concerns whether the OXCI architecture supports the
>service on other parties or their attorneys of documents that are not filed
>with a court such as discovery (interrogatories, requests for production of
>documents, deposition notices,
>>  offers of judgment, etc.).
>>
>>
>>
>> The Court Filing XML schema apparently was generated by the DTD to XML
>schema feature of XML Spy. Like similar DTD to XML schema applications, the
>result is a fairly decent XML schema. However, the resulting XML schema can
>be substantially improved and
>> made more useful by modest editing to add features available in XML
>schemas but not available in DTDs. Providing for the following in the
>proposed XML schema would be useful:
>>
>>
>>
>> XML namespaces - the proposed XML schema has no default or
>targetNamespace. An XML schema "best practice" is to declare the
>targetNamespace as the default namespace. This approach eliminates problems
>with element name collisions and other problems when
>> one schema, such as the Court Filing XML schema, is used with another,
>such as the SOAP schema. Creating an XML namespace for the proposed Court
>Filing XML schema would improve its utility significantly.
>>
>>
>>
>> ANY content elements - the DTD to XML schema converter changed elements in
>the DTD having ANY content (e.g. administrativeLaw, civil,
>domesticRelations, etc.), which can contain any of the other elements
>declared in the DTD, to elements having mixed con
>> tent, which can contain text and specifically declared elements. The mixed
>content elements in the proposed XML schema, however, contain no declared
>elements. Thus, filings containing an element within <civil/> will be valid
>against the Court Filing DTD
>> , but not against the proposed XML schema. The wildcard component of XML
>schema is capable of providing substantially the same function as ANY
>content in a DTD. Changing the "empty" mixed content elements in the
>proposed Court Filing XML schema to use X
>> ML schema wildcards would make the schema more equivalent to the DTD.
>>
>>
>>
>> Enumerated element values - XML schema allow the declaration of enumerated
>values for elements in addition to attributes. Many of the elements
>(hairColor, eyeColor, race, etc.)  in the Court Filing 1.1 DTD have required
>data values. Including such requi
>> red data values as enumerated element values in the proposed schema would
>prevent problems that might occur if an element in a filing fails to contain
>the data value required by the Court Filing 1.1 spec.
>>
>>
>>
>> Datatyping - one of the major advantages of XML schema over DTDs is
>datatyping. There are built-in data types available in XML schema for date,
>time, integer, decimal, and others. It also is possible to declare datatypes
>for data items such as zip codes
>>  or telephone numbers. The proposed Court Filing XML schema uses only the
>string data type, but might be made more useful if other XML data types were
>used where appropriate.
>>
>>
>>
>> I again commend MTG's contribution. Thanks for soliciting and considering
>these suggestions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rolly Chambers
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Greacen
>> Sent: Mon 3/10/2003 6:16 PM
>> To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
>> Cc:
>> Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
>>
>> I enclose a zipped file containing a report from MTG for OXCI including a
>series of architectural recommendations for the OXCI product and draft
>schemas for court filing and query and response.  The court filing schema
>incorporates ebXML messaging and t
>> he elements from the current version of the JXDDS.  Those are two of the
>objectives we have set for ourselves for Electronic Court Filing "Blue."
>OXCI is contributing these work products to this Technical Committee to use
>as we see fit.  OXCI would als
>> o appreciate feedback on the architectural piece and on the schemas.
>>
>>
>>
>> John M. Greacen
>>
>> Greacen Associates, LLC
>>
>> HCR 78, Box 23
>>
>> Regina, New Mexico 87046
>>
>> 505-289-2164
>>
>> 505-780-1450 (cell)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>