legalxml-courtfiling — archive

[John Messing]

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 service 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, admittedly, 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 of 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 using 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 subcommittee 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 others 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.