RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up Documents

["Hickman, Brian" <Brian.Hickman@wolterskluwer.com>]

I just sent Microsoft's XML team a question and asked them what they
would recommend as the best way to embed structured content and
unstructured content in an MS Word file.  I explained that today courts
use a manual process to extract content from legal pleadings to populate
the court's case management system and that it would be beneficial if a
machine could read the MS Word file, extract structured content, content
that conformed to a data model, while ignoring the unstructured,
narrative, content.  If I hear back from Microsoft I will share the
response.

Brian Hickman 
Attorney
Government Relations
CT


520 Pike Street, Suite 2610
Seattle, WA 98101 
206 622 4511 (tel)
206 437 1766 (mobile)
brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com
 

Privileged and confidential
NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) from CT Corporation may
constitute an attorney-client communication and may contain information
that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you
are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination of this message is strictly prohibited.  Please
permanently delete all copies and any attachments and notify the sender
immediately by reply email or by calling Brian Hickman, Attorney at Law,
at 206.622.4511. Thank You. 
-----Original Message-----
From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:06 AM
To: Winters,Roger
Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org; O'Brien,Robert
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up Documents

Form pleadings have a definite place in law practice but it is not
possible to cover all possible litigation situations with forms, and
for more sophisticated matters, there are definite economic and
copyright issues over pleadings authored by particular law firms that
can arise. It is ideal to have more regular, simple matters handled by
form pleadings, but even here, this does require the creation and
adoption of the forms by each jurisdiction, which is neither a rapid
nor a certain process.

It could be helpful, working in parallel, to develop an extraction
method along the lines suggested by Robert O'Brien, provided it is
feasible from a technical point of view, which is something I think
others could address.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up
> Documents
> From: "Winters, Roger" <Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV>
> Date: Wed, January 10, 2007 9:53 am
> To: "O'Brien, Robert" <Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca>
> Cc: <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> I have always expressed a clear idea that every document is, among
other
> things, a container of data elements that include the data elements
> captured (traditionally) by a clerk by reading the document and
> re-typing the information into a CMS of some sort. It is that
re-typing
> by the clerk of DATA THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE FILING that needs to
be
> eliminated.
> 
> It does not help explain the situation when this desire is
characterized
> as shifting the Clerk's work to the attorney, making the attorney do
the
> Clerk's data entry, fulfilling an "almost insatiable" demand for data
by
> the court (and Clerk), etc. 
> 
> I have personally witnessed the process of building pattern forms in
our
> state. Without data entry issues in mind, the committee (mostly
> attorneys) created templates (usually in an outline format) that call
> for the user to put certain data items into certain spaces in response
> to a question (dictated by something in the statute) and have other
> sections that are intended for the user to write out an explanation,
> description, argumentation, persuasive rhetoric, etc. -- the sort of
> thing I understand that some lawyers are said to be fearing coming
under
> threat when they are specifically asked to call out data elements for
> labor-saving and efficiency purposes. In pattern forms, I have seen
many
> instances where the section heading is "Other," with the expectation
the
> filer can expound indefinitely to supply anything otherwise thought
> needed to persuade the court or jury. 
> 
> What we care about are the specific data elements that we have workers
> locating, reading, re-typing (and regularly making human errors, which
> adds the work steps of discovering the error, correcting it, cleaning
up
> consequences from it, etc.), verifying/reviewing, and so forth. Where
> these data elements can be specifically called for to be placed in a
> certain location in a template, it seems to me, the result could be
that
> the data element in that location could be automatically tagged so the
> Clerk's systems need only locate the appropriate tags and repurpose
the
> data elements associated with them. In other words, it should be
> possible to have the tagging accomplished without calling on the
lawyer
> to become or feel she is a data-entry clerk for the court. 
> 
> This (pattern form or template) is actually an implementation issue.
By
> focusing on implementation questions, those who oppose telling
attorneys
> to use a certain standard format - rather than a 100% free-form
(easier
> to do) argument without concern about how specific data elements will
be
> found and used in Court systems - avoid the basic issue. The basic
issue
> is whether we shouldn't use XML markup and NIEM/GJXDM type
> standardization of data element tagging to ENABLE automation of
> processes of capturing data elements needed in court CMS's or
otherwise.
> 
> 
> The reason many came to LegalXML from the courts (and most of the
people
> at the beginning were from courts and clerk's offices) was
specifically
> to find ways to automate such data capture/repurposing processes now
> done manually. Now we have had several years' work on the envelope to
> pass a non-XML document to the clerk, where the work for the clerk
> remains essentially to read a paper (on a screen, not a printout) to
> locate data elements to be retyped into a target system. Nothing we
have
> done so far (with the exception of work Rex has done with child
support
> enforcement documents in Georgia) has really tapped the assumed vast
> power of standardized XML tagging to save courts literally millions of
> keystroke actions (a unit of labor) per day. We have not started to
work
> with documents that are truly digital - we are still using XML only to
> promote interoperability in DELIVERING documents that have had their
> digital qualities stripped from them through printing/scanning or
> through locking them up in a PDF format so they really, really look
like
> a traditional paper filing. 
> 
> The time has come to give serious attention to this additional,
> potentially more complex and controversial dimension of using XML
> tagging in legal documents (not just court filings). Why? Because it
is
> in this area that the truly great leaps forward in document processing
> and in the efficient provision of information to support the work of
our
> courts can be found. 
> 
> I personally would agree to a parameter that said that the imposition
of
> new data entry tasks on E-Filers should be minimized, allowable only
> when justified clearly and when no alternative can be found and where
> the data elements are needed in service to the court. I would no more
> welcome the tacking on of tasks to drive attorneys back to paper
filings
> than would anyone else. That would be totally self-defeating for
clerks
> of court -- none of whom have advocated doing that. (I believe the
> spectre of IMPOSED DATA ENTRY is only an argument saying lawyers don't
> want to modify the way they do certain things; nevertheless, as those
of
> us who have lived through revised court rules, implementations of new
> ways of doing business, introduction of pattern forms for many
purposes,
> lawyers have always adapted when it has been called for. And, it is
> their staff, by and large, who have done the work and who have the
savvy
> to work out the adaptations.)
> 
> The above is not a policy statement of King County's - it is my
personal
> effort to communicate and explain what I think is a very important
part
> of the work of our Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee - a
part
> that has not yet been seriously undertaken, but for which the need
> remains.
> 
> Thanks for asking...
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Roger
> 
> Roger Winters
> Program and Project Manager
> King County
> Department of Judicial Administration
> 516 Third Ave. E-609 MS:KCC-JA-0609
> Seattle, WA 98104
> V: (206) 296-7838
> F: (206) 296-0906
> roger.winters@metrokc.gov
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: O'Brien, Robert [mailto:Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:06 PM
> To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up
Documents
> 
> "These should be extracted from free text if possible by allowing text
> to
> flow around the tags for these data points."
> 
> Yes, I think you've got it John. Roger, do you see it thusly?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] 
> Sent: January 9, 2007 7:04 PM
> To: O'Brien, Robert
> Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up
Documents
> 
> I distill from this exchange the following:
> 
> Data points for extraction must be established and in many cases made
> mandatory.
> 
> These should be extracted from free text if possible by allowing text
to
> flow around the tags for these data points.
> 
> The remaining free text should be stored as needed for future
reference.
> 
> Sounds like a CMS and DMS to me.
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up
> > Documents
> > From: "O'Brien, Robert" <Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca>
> > Date: Tue, January 09, 2007 3:11 pm
> > To: <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > 
> > I don't disagree at all with John M: we must walk a fine line /
create
> a
> > balance between the Courts' sometimes almost insatiable need for
data
> > for its CMS vs. the breaking point of e-filers for the amount of
data
> > entry that can reasonably be expected of them with their filings ---
> > lest they simply revert to what they perceive as less onerous paper
> > filings. Also agree with John re: maintaining the lawyer's look and
> feel
> > of his document. It's one reason many e-filing installations opt for
> PDF
> > as the submitted document format, to lock down counsel's
presentation.
> > 
> > What I believe Roger and I are suggesting is that there is still
ample
> > opportunity to PAINLESSLY extract data from e-filers via marked-up
> > documents. Let me give the breakdown of a typical example of a
docket
> > entry for an Affidavit document:
> > 
> > Affidavit of: John Smith
> > Sworn on: January 3, 2007
> > Before: R.H. Talbot, Commissioner of Oaths
> > Filed on behalf of: the Defendant ABC Co. 
> > In Opposition to: Motion for Particulars of counterclaim
> > Attached: Exhibits A-F 
> > Submitted pursuant to: special order of Judge Jones allowing
extension
> > of time to respond until January 9, 2009
> > 
> > Currently, we are not getting all of that information from the legal
> > envelope itself. And that may be fine, because if the e-filer had to
> > answer additional onscreen data fields --- in addition to having
> already
> > entered it when he or she typed up the document itself --- then our
> > e-filer might just walk away and return to the paper filing world
> where
> > no one seems to bother him so.
> > 
> > But this standard information the Courts crave is already all there
> > within the Affidavit document itself, just waiting to be harvested.
It
> > is important to stress this point: it is ALREADY there, albeit in
free
> > form and perhaps scattered about the doc. 
> > 
> > By marking up the document to contain a few tags that would convey
> this
> > info to us for parsing, the Court and Clerk's Office would see a
> > completely automated docket entry creation - the Holy Grail from
their
> > perspective. 
> > 
> > Yet the attorney is still free to insert all sorts of free-form of
> > argument as John rightly contends. The few strategic tags that the
> > Courts would require would not interfere with counsel's creativeness
> nor
> > with the overall presentation of his document.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] 
> > Sent: January 8, 2007 9:25 PM
> > To: O'Brien, Robert
> > Cc: john@greacen.net; Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV;
> > legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up
> Documents
> > 
> > I think the needs of lawyers need to acknowledged. The filings for
> them
> > are ways to influence a judge's or jury's decision. If they feel put
> > into a strait-jacket for extraneous reasons, they may feel that
> > electronic filing is an obstacle, rebel and complain to the judges.
A
> > way to prevent such an outcome, which I think would be disasterous
for
> > electronic court filing, is to assure that free-form of argument is
> > available somewhere within a document. It may not even be persistent
> > data from the perspective of the court administration, but it is a
> > matter of record and will require preservation nontheless. It could
be
> > stored as a single blob or as some kind of character data. But it
will
> > need to be included, to avoid real trouble, IMHO.
> > 
> > 
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up
> > > Documents
> > > From: "O'Brien, Robert" <Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca>
> > > Date: Mon, January 08, 2007 7:09 pm
> > > To: <Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV>,
> > > <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > Cc: <john@greacen.net>
> > > 
> > > As a fellow representative of the Court User domain, I
> wholeheartedly
> > > endorse Roger's sentiments. Many Court staff and managers don't
even
> > > want to hear about e-filing unless it will save them work (e.g.
the
> > area
> > > of case management system data entry). 
> > > 
> > > We must try to leverage more from e-filing in this regard.
> > > 
> > > Robert O'B
> > > Courts Administration Service 
> > > Ottawa Canada
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]

> > > Sent: December 24, 2006 8:34 PM
> > > To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Cc: john@greacen.net
> > > Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up
Documents
> > > 
> > > Hello, John, and members of the List,
> > > 
> > > In perusing the draft revised Charter, I have realized we haven't
> > > stressed that it is a goal of the TC to develop XML documents that
> > would
> > > be marked up in such a way as to automate data extraction and
> > eliminate
> > > duplicative data entry for court filings. Accordingly, I propose
> that
> > > the draft Charter revision be amended to include language such as:
> > > 
> > > "the TC intends to develop techniques and principles for creating
> XML
> > > legal documents for the purpose of data capture and re-use without
> > > manual re-entry, across a broad spectrum of uses, including court
> > > filings."
> > > 
> > > I hope others will endorse this added purpose and, if anyone has
> > better
> > > language, please offer it. 
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > > 
> > > Roger
> > > 
> > > Roger Winters
> > > King County