February / March 2019

February/March 2019

Vol. 17 No. 1

Court Reporting & Digital Recording

Cybersecurity: Protecting Court Data Assets

n i g n i n ? k w r o o Dr erw p a P

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

Courts Today 69 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755

E

IT G I D

A

YS S L

S M E T

T

HE T O

CU S E R

with alternative & diversion programs

Publisher & Executive Editor Thomas S. Kapinos Assistant Publisher Jennifer Kapinos

F E B R U A R Y / M A R C H 2 019

Editor Donna Rogers

V O L U M E 17 N U M B E R 1

Contributing Editors Michael Grohs, Bill Schiffner G.F. Guercio, Kelly Mason

F EATU R E S

Art Director Jamie Stroud Marketing Representatives Bonnie Dodson (828) 479-7472

10 Court Reporting & Digital Recording

14 Cybersecurity: Protecting

Art Sylvie (480) 816-3448 Peggy Virgadamo (718) 456-7329

Court Data Assets

21 Drowning in Paperwork?

Digital Systems to the Rescue

24 The CMS: You Can’t Just Buy It and Forget It!

28 A Survey of Judicial Salaries

with alternative & diversion programs

is published bi-monthly by: Criminal Justice Media, Inc PO Box 213 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310.374.2700 Send address changes to: COURTS TODAY 69 Lyme Road Hanover, NH 03755 or fax (603) 643-6551 To receive a FREE subscription to COURTS TODAY submit, on court letterhead, your request with qualifying title; date, sign and mail to COURTS TODAY 69 Lyme Road Hanover, NH 03755 or you may fax your subscription request to (603) 643-6551

DE PARTM E NTS

4

News

Subscriptions: Annual subscriptions for non-qualified personnel, United States only, is $60.00.

Single copy or back issues-$10.00 All Canada and Foreign subscriptions are $90.00 per year.

Printed in the United States of America, Copyright © 2019 Criminal Justice Media, Inc.

C O U RTS I N T H E M E D I A CITIZENS IN KENTUCKY CAN NOW EFILE SMALL CLAIMS CASES As of December 2018, all citizens in Kentucky who represent themselves in small claims cases may now skip trips to the courthouse to file documents and instead file them electronically, according to the December 14 edition of the

. The Administrative Office of the Courts expanded the availability of eFiling for self-represented litigants in small claims cases from three pilot counties to statewide. “This is a significant milestone for our eFiling program,� AOC Director Laurie K. Dudgeon said. “We’re happy to be able to offer this service to the public. People representing themselves in small claims cases will get to experience the convenience of being able to file court documents electronically. Most peo-

ple do represent themselves in small claims instead of using an attorney so accepting electronic filings in these cases is the logical first step in expanding the use of eFiling to all case types for the public.�

The stage was set back in 2008 when John D. Minton became chief justice of Kentucky, and investing in court technology became one of his main goals. Kentucky was operating as a paper court system and was years away from joining the federal courts and other state courts in offering electronic filing.

Today, eFiling is at the heart of KYeCourts, the court system’s sweeping, multiyear initiative to update court technology and transform how the judicial, legal and law enforcement communities do business. The aim of KYeCourts is to update Kentucky’s court technology to meet the demands on the court system and enable the courts to stay current with the mainstream of law and commerce.

CALIFORNIA AIMS TO MODERNIZE COURT TECH FURTHER WITH NEW PLAN Early in December, the Judicial Council of California released a four-year strategic technology plan to keep the state’s massive court system moving forward on IT modernization, according to magazine. The new plan is based around three principles: accessible and easy-to-use systems for all those who seek to use the state’s courts; the maintenance of a “well architected, secure, and reliable technical infrastructure�; and the fostering of a “culture of innovation through planning, collaboration, and education to enhance court services and operations.�

The report emphasizes several key technology goals: • Promoting the use of digital

court services • Creating a collaborative environment so courts can work on IT innovations • Investing in a secure, scalable and reliable IT infrastructure to offer digital services and public access, while ensuring privacy The council’s report notes that California’s court system, the largest in the nation, has more than 2,000 judicial officers, about 19,000 court employees and 6.2 million cases each year. It serves more than 39 million people, nearly 7 million of whom have limited English proficiency, and covers both some of the most highly populated areas of the country and some of its most rural.

There is also a wide range in the fiscal health and capabilities of the state’s courts, and those disparities, along with past budget shortfalls, have affected the ability of the courts to invest in technology, resulting in a court system that lacks consistency across the judicial branch, the report says.

The report is California’s attempt to learn and move on from the Court Case Management System, an IT project that the state was forced to abandon in 2012 after it came under a hail of criticism from lawmakers and the state’s auditor, according to

CCMS is now widely seen as a debacle, said

The site reports: Through CCMS, the council sought to connect the state’s 58 trial courts and various “justice partners� through one unifying computer system. It was an enormous endeavor, one that cost the state a half-billion dollars and was projected to cost at least $1 billion more, according to an audit released in 2011.

State Sen. Hannah Beth Jackson, chair of the state Senate Judiciary

October/November 2018 4

W W W .C OU R TS TODAY .CO M

C O U RTS I N T H E M E D I A Committee, referred to CCMS when she questioned California Associate Justice Marsha Slough, chair of the council’s technology committee, about the new plan’s aims. “There was a debacle a few years ago with an attempt to create a unified system. I know we shouldn’t be talking about that,� Jackson said, according to

. “But just as some context, what you are proposing now is not necessarily a statewide system but systems that will interface with each other and that will be meshed so different counties can use whatever systems they like. They will be coordinated.�

Slough replied: “Absolutely. The reason why it is so important is because we have learned clearly that we end up with a greater product. When we start the development of the product on the very ground level— that’s the trial courts and the people walking in the door of the trial courts—that’s where we learn the most.�

IOWA CHIEF JUSTICE ENVISIONS JUDICIAL ADVANCES Iowa Chief Justice Mark Cady knows that justice delayed is justice denied, that all Iowans deserve access to our legal system. He intends to ensure that happens,

according to an editorial in nwestiowa.com.

That’s why he proposes investing in Iowa’s court system, including using available technology to allow more cases be resolved online, hiring 37 court employees to work in rural areas, improving access to the system for non-English speakers and those who represent themselves in court, making improvements in juvenile court services and giving judges a well-earned pay increase. The price tag for his proposals is a $7.3 million increase over the $177.6 million spent on the Iowa Judicial Branch in the current fiscal year.

More than one-third of that, $2.5 million, would be used for technological improvements, according to Cady. He said Iowa should employ electronically filed search warrants, send text messages to defendants to alert them of court dates and, most interestingly, use online dispute resolution. “Online dispute resolution has started in a few states with promising early results. The state of Utah established an online dispute resolution pilot project for small claims cases that substantially reduced the steps needed to resolve a case,� said Cady, who has been on the high court since 1998 and has been chief justice since 2010. “It has streamlined the process and made it more convenient for court users. We want to do the same for the 75,000 Iowans who use our small claims courts each year.�

He also proposed spending $1.9 million to give judges a raise, $1.6 million to hire 37 staffers to work in rural Iowa, $897,000 to bolster stressed juvenile court services, $359,000 dedicated to aiding those who do not speak English as well as people who, for whatever reason, choose to act as their own legal representative. He also wants to invest $86,000 in creating “problem-solving courts,� which would help relieve the burden on the court system. “Imagine a coordinated court process that not only holds people responsible for their conduct but also works to identify and resolve the problems of those people ready for help,� he said. “Some people need to be incarcerated. More people just need help. A justice system must do both.� “We are especially interesting in the addition of 37 employees to work in clerk of court offices in rural areas,� he stressed on the web page. Cady said it is a way of “strengthening ties with rural communities.�

The positions already have been authorized, but have not been funded.

On Jan. 16, Cady, 65, delivered his annual Condition of the Judiciary address and laid out his proposals. He hopes to launch pilot programs this year to explore the online resolution system, but as with all his ideas, it is up to the Legislature and Gov. Kim Reynolds to approve funding.

February/March 2019 6

W W W .C OU R TS TOD AY .CO M

C O U RTS I N T H E M E D I A While there is a cost associated with these improvements, there also is the potential for a return. Cady estimates a $2 million gain for the state—$177.57 million spent, $179.72 million returned—during the current fiscal year, and said these new high-tech programs will save money and increase access to court services. “Few understood the benefits and value of a paperless court system when it launched 10 years ago,� he said. “Without those few people, the Iowa court system would not have the first-in-the-nation comprehensive electronic filing system on which lawyers and court users depend. Embracing change is the part of a culture of continuous improvement that is so critical to our success.�

STATE AND LOCAL COURT SYSTEMS ADOPT VIDEOCONFERENCING Many court proceedings require face-to-face interaction, typically involving multiple parties, resulting in delays in scheduling and processing. In recent years, IP videoconferencing programs have gained traction within state and local court systems, according to magazine’s Jan. 25 edition.

With immersive videoconferencing technology in courtrooms and IP video endpoints, participants in the legal process—from interpreters to witnesses—can join a hearing’s virtual mix without disrupting proceedings. Not only can such systems save money, but they also reduce risk.

SAN ANTONIO INVESTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE The San Antonio Municipal Court, the court of record for the city of San Antonio, Texas, became a virtual pioneer when it launched an ambitious videoconferencing effort in 2008. The objective? “Instant jus-

tice,� says presiding Judge John Bull, who, along with court manager Jason Tabor, spearheaded the effort to use videoconferencing to support remote court hearings. The goal was to offer offenders a convenient alternative to waiting in a crowded downtown courtroom to plead guilty in person. “In the private sector, IT revolves around return on investment,� says Tabor, who oversees court technology as well as the videoconferencing program. “In government services, though, it’s about return on value.

So, our focus isn’t on the rate of return on our technology investments but on providing value to our citizens.�

Before starting the video effort, the city standardized on Cisco technology to gain the benefit of its integrated systems and to eliminate the cost of supporting a multivendor hodgepodge. As part of the IT management team, Tabor helped upgrade the city’s network, replacing most of the infrastructure with Cisco components. The court also converted its telecom system to Voice over IP, which it integrated with the video infrastructure.

With these upgrades, Tabor created a flexible videoconferencing network that accommodates any IP video endpoint. “We ensured the court’s video units could connect with any IP-enabled system through our city network infrastructure,� he says. “To connect an IP video unit to the network, all you need is a standard network jack.

Just plug in, and you’re live.�

Today, the court takes advantage of several video endpoints. These include Cisco telepresence screens in courtrooms, desktop units on the bench and in the clerk’s office, video phones, telecommuter laptops and video kiosks installed in local grocery stores. Tabor is now enhancing these kiosks, integrating live chat, text messaging and collaborative tools.

While the court doesn’t plan to use videoconferencing for trials, it’s tailor-made for plea entries and fine assessments. It also meets the round-the-clock needs of telecommuting judges assigned to adjudicate the cases of defendants held in the county magistrate’s center.

OREGON UPGRADES TELEPRESENCE As the telecommunication group lead for the Oregon Judicial Department, Brian Canfield has dealt with videoconference issues caused by underperforming networks, according to magazine. Frustrated, he switched to a new network service provider, which honored his group’s quality of service contract. “We’re now able to deliver a high-quality videoconference experience, with none of the pixelating we previously saw.�

Canfield’s small team centrally manages the network and video infrastructure for 36 county courthouses and 42 annexes across 27 judicial districts. While handling this function, the team managed to complete a sweeping videoconferencing rollout, part of the OJD’s technology modernization plan.

Ninety-five percent of Oregon’s circuit courts supported video connectivity by 2007, but they had a mishmash of video tools restricted to point-to-point connections.

Canfield’s team upgraded each courthouse to common standards.

The upside: They came away with a template for courtroom audiovisual installations that will speed deployments going forward. “Among other technologies, they installed Polycom telepresence systems, RealPresence servers, smaller videoconferencing units and additional cameras to shoot from several angles. They also switched out existing audio equipment for highend systems, so courtroom digital recording software can accurately capture audio and video for the official case record,� Canfield says.

February/March 2019 8

W W W .C OU R TS TOD AY .CO M

BY DO N N A R O G E R S, E D IT O R

Setting the Record Straight The evolution of court reporting and digital recording aren’t necessarily dependent on the other.

Court reporters continue to have an important place in courts while recorders fill the gap.

FIVE YEARS AGO, the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) commissioned an industry outlook report to assess not only the current size of the court reporting industry, including how many people are court reporters and captioners, but what future demand looks like, and in what areas there would be growth for those who make use of the stenographic method to convert speech to text.

Today that report conducted by independent research firm, Ducker Worldwide, stands as the premier snapshot of the state of the court reporter industry. The result of the research is a synthesis of the market, yielding a current and forecasted view of market demand and supply for court reporters.

In 2014 the “Ducker Report” found there were approximately 32,000 stenographic court reporters working in the United States. It cautioned that demand for court reporters would exceed supply over the next five years. “Decreased enrollment and graduation rates for court reporters, combined with significant retirement rates, will create by 2018 a critical shortfall projected to represent nearly 5,500 court reporting positions.”

It furthered that the “shortage of stenographic court reporters presented a one-time, substantial opportunity for those seeking a lucrative career with a secure future.” It added that court reporters remain very much in demand. “When market forces are

in play, such as in the deposition side of the business, stenographic court reporters remain the overwhelming choice of attorneys, judges, and others making a dayto-day judgment of the best method for capturing the spoken word and converting it to text.”

However it pointed out that the market in which most court reporters serve is changing. “The courts and law firms are in a period of notable transition. Continued cost pressures on both the courts and law firms are forcing them to change their business models. More than 45 states accept the practice of digital recording in the courtroom in an attempt to demonstrate cost cutting. In fact some states, such as Florida, Kentucky, Alaska, Indiana

February/March 2019 10

W W W .C OU R TS TODAY .CO M

and Oregon, have transitioned to high levels of digital recording.”

Today some states, such as Utah, Maine and New Hampshire employ 100% digital recording.

On the other hand, it noted, New York, California, Texas and Illinois have the lowest levels of digital recording and half of court reporters work in these four states.

By the numbers The NCRA is the only national network dedicated to advancing the interests of court reporting, and captioning professionals. According to the report, data from NCRA indicates that reporters holding the Registered Professional Reporter (RPR) certification earn, on average, earn 20 percent more annually than those who do not hold this designation. While it continues to be a source of support and education, over past several decades, membership in the NCRA has decreased from a high of around 50,000 to about 15,000 today.

The report said the number of court reporters forecast to be employed from 2013 to 2018 is dropping. “The number of new entrants to the profession will not keep pace with pending retirements,” it noted. “The number of new entrants over the five years is about 1,500 while the number of reporters retiring over that five-year period is 5,100, making the projected supply gap in 2018 between 3,500 to 4,000 court reporters.”

Moreover, the average age of reporters in 2013 was 51 years of age, a number that is likely higher today.

Further based on 2013 trends, in 2018, the supply of reporters will drop to 27,700. Coupled with a pro-

jected 2018 demand of 33,200 reporters, the difference is 5,500 opportunities. Perhaps to fill that need, NCRA points out, “statistics show that the court reporting field is expected to grow by 14 percent through the year 2020.

demanded in the marketplace (often measured in accuracy and words per minute). Some students drop out before they reach the skill set required to become a freelance or official court reporter.”

What is at issue?

Digital Recording Providers

While incoming classes have shrunk, digital recording is not to blame; it has, however, filled some of the gap, says Erik Lige, VP, Sales and Marketing with TheRecordXchange, who is a veteran in the field with experience both on the recording side as well as with a service provider of outsourced transcription services.

Every single state today is using some digital recording, he reiterates. But anyone who says “digital recording has replaced [court reporters] is off base. The NCRA can’t get people to come to school.”

The reasons are multi-pronged.

Demographics have changed significantly over the years, Lige outlines. Thirty years ago the profile of a student in stenographer classes was a high school grad and female. “Today that person can do other things,” such as pursue a four-year college degree.

In addition, he states, “the skill set is tough to become a court reporter.” According to the Ducker Report, “Most programs have an educational element, during which students learn stenographic theory as well as legal procedures and best practices, but there is also a challenging skill to acquire in the finger strokes it takes to write on a steno machine.” Moreover, court reporting “is a profession that requires frequent and continuous practice to maintain a level of competency

Digital recordings capture the court record when a court reporter cannot be present. As far as digital recording is concerned, high-quality audio capture is the most important aspect of your recording system, according to JAVS, one of the leading providers.

Integrating other technologies into the recording, such as evidence presentation and video conferencing can be achieved by configuring the system with various add-on components. For courts wanting to bring video capture to their recordings, firms like JAVS can help them plan how to manage the additional components, and integrate them into other video technologies.

In recent months, digital recording is undergoing improvements with new capabilities being launched that make it easier for the courts to deploy them. Another of the top brands states that with reliable performance and simplified deployment their recording equipment requires minimal IT support and operator training.

Placing the power to control and maintain the A/V infrastructure into the hands of the courts allows staff to schedule cases more efficiently and accurately, JAVS notes. As staff becomes familiar with the system it allows them the freedom to easily set up impromptu videoconferences, record inchamber meetings and manage February/March 2019x

WWW . C OU R T ST OD AY . CO M

11

language interpreters.

TheRecordXchange builds webbased tools to manage transcriptions, whether the record is stenographic or digitally recorded.

Rather than disparate methods the attorney may use to get transcripts with various judges in the same courthouse, this streamlines the process. Attorneys can go to one web site, choose a judge and interact online. The system handles all customer interactions, the financial transaction and customer support.

Court staff is automatically notified when an order is submitted, can review and approve each order, then upload the recording files, Lige says. Customers can

place orders, make payments, and stream or download the recordings online using any PC, laptop, tablet or smart phone—at no cost to the court.

In addition, the TheRecordXchange platform is designed specifically for the legal community whereby attorneys can schedule Recording Agents™ for depositions, and order certified transcripts of both depositions and court proceedings. Comprised of a vetted notary equipped with high quality recording equipment, the Recording Agent attends the hearing, swears in a witness, manages the exhibits, captures a recording and provides a certified transcript.

Lige notes that Marion County, Indianapolis, was having difficulty delivering criminal appeal transcripts within the 90 days required by statute; in fact, the time to deliver the transcripts was creeping up to 180 days. After the court installed RecordXchange software, he says, delivery time was reduced to 45 days.

Finally, while Lige acknowledges the transition from stenographers to digital recording is an emotional topic, it is simply the reality. “Changes are happening and it’s irreversible‌. We are forced to look at alternatives,â€? because “as the transition occurs, we need to do this right way.â€? CT

February/March 2019 12

W W W .C OU R TS TODAY .CO M

BY BR I A N J . M C L A U G H L IN

Cybersecurity: Protecting Court Data Assets State court systems are guardians of sensitive data for individuals and organizations. To best address the threat of a cyberattack, internal coordination and external collaboration are essential in data governance.

When it comes to digital data assets, state court systems are not unlike financial institutions, retail companies, health-care providers, and other government organizations. This extraordinary public responsibility makes them a highvalue target for cybercriminals.

The threat of a cyberattack is not just an IT department problem; it is an organization-wide problem.

Over time, the judicial branch has successfully used technological

developments to improve the court process. Yet the increasing cyber threats are too significant for courts to address on their own.

While there are indispensable technical tools, this article highlights administrative strategies to prevent and respond to cyberattacks.

For executive data governance, state court systems must coordinate internally and collaborate externally with the executive and legislative branches.

Defining Cybersecurity In our hyper-connected world, the technology that we rely on also makes us more vulnerable. State court systems are no exception.

The many benefits of technology are accompanied by risks and challenges. Unfortunately, cyberattacks on individuals and organizations continue to rise in frequency and sophistication. The Federal

February/March 2019 14

W W W .C OU R TS TODAY .CO M

hostage until a ransom is paid by the host organization. Additionally, they could try to sabotage data integrity and information systems.

All three of these acts could catastrophically damage an organization’s operations and credibility.

Cyber Threats

Bureau of Investigation (2017) reported that cyberattacks in the United States caused over $1.3 billion in victim losses during 2016.

Generally, cybersecurity involves the protection of computers and information systems from theft, damage, or disruption. More specifically, according to an article in 1'$/+*+! 2 //+ -0.+/ -/-!1(1/02 1 .1 Craigen, Diakun-Thibault, and Purse (2014) defined cybersecurity as “the orga-

nization and collection of resources, processes, and structures used to protect cyberspace and cyberspace-enabled systems from occurrences that misalign de jure from de facto property rights.”

Cybercriminals seek undetected access to target information systems. Through this invasion, they may perform data exfiltration, which is the unauthorized transfer of data from a computer or device.

Cybercriminals may also hold data

In the 2016 /01,/102#,.(12 1 +,0 the FBI defines a cyber incident as “a past, ongoing, or threatened intrusion, disruption, or other event that impairs or is likely to impair the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of electronic information, information systems, services, or networks” (2017).

While data breaches can happen in many ways, this article focuses on the potential for targeted attacks.

Four types of cyberattacks are particularly concerning for state courts.

1. Phishing uses social engineering to solicit personal information from unsuspecting users to compromise their own systems.

Phishing e-mails appear legitimate and manipulate users to enter items, such as usernames or passwords that can be used to compromise accounts. Spearphishing, a more personalized method, could target specific judges and court employees.

2. Ransomware infects software and locks an organization’s access to their data until a ransom is paid.

Through phishing e-mails, driveby downloading, and unpatched software vulnerabilities, cybercriminals attempt to extort users by encrypting their data until certain conditions are met. The result is a temporary or even permanent loss of data.

3. Advanced persistent threat February/March 2019x

WWW . C OU R T ST OD AY . CO M

15

(APT) attacks attempt to maintain ongoing, extended access to a network by continually rewriting malicious code and using sophisticated evasion techniques. A successful APT attack results in complete invisible control of systems over a lengthy period time. APTs typically use socially engineered attacks to get a foot in the network door.

4. Code-injection attacks involve the submission of incorrect code into a vulnerable computer program without detection. Through these attacks, cybercriminals trick the target system into executing a command or allowing access to unauthorized data. The most common codeinjection attack uses Standard Query Language (SQL) through an online application. It is important to note that all these threats can evolve, while new cyberattack methods can emerge.

Targeting Courts State court systems are guardians of sensitive data for individuals and organizations. Court records are crucial in the functioning of our society. Preserving these official records is a responsibility long held by judicial-branch administrators. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the first position of district court clerk to record deeds and judgments of the courts (Sec. 7). Much has changed in the nearly 229 years since. Today, modern court administrators have extensive data-governance responsibility. Data governance includes the people, processes, and technology required to properly handle an organization’s data assets.

Included under this umbrella are data quality, usability, integrity, security, and preservation. Data

governance truly touches all aspects of a court organization.

The landscape of court technology has changed rapidly, as digital tools help facilitate the business process of the court. This proliferation of technology has improved the judiciary’s access and transparency, while also significantly increasing data storage and the digital footprint. Consequently,

“…there are multiple entry points for data breaches in the judicial branch...judiciary case management systems, networks, servers, cloud storage, software programs, WiFi systems, employee devices, and an array of court–specific technology.” there are multiple entry points for data breaches in the judicial branch. These include judiciary case management systems, networks, servers, cloud storage, software programs, WiFi systems, employee devices, and an array of court-specific technology. No longer is just one desktop PC assigned to each employee within a court facility. Judges and court staff now uses laptops, tablets, and smartphones to conduct court business. These devices are used outside the confines of the courthouse, accessing networks within and across jurisdictional lines.

Though most court records are nonconfidential, there is plenty of

information legally shielded from public view. Beyond the damaging consequences of disrupting court operations, cybercriminals can target the trove of sealed and confidential information in judiciary systems.

A sample of this data includes: • personal identifiers, including Social Security numbers and bank account numbers • victim information in domestic violence and sexual assault cases • confidential informants and search warrants in criminal cases • family court files involving children and families • medical and psychological reports • testimony within sealed transcripts and recordings • intellectual property and trade secrets • jury and grand jury records • metadata within judiciary documents • judicial deliberation records • employee personnel data in HR files • court financial records This information is shielded from public view to protect the privacy of litigants, children, witnesses, judges, and employees.

Courts are entrusted with these records, and consequently face varying degrees of liability if they fail to keep them secure. Many are negatively impacted by a cyberattack on a court: litigants, witnesses, victims, judges, lawyers, court staff, the organization itself, and the public as a whole.

For example, the Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts public website suffered a data breach in 2013 effectuated

February/March 2019 16

W W W .C OU R TS TODAY .CO M

through an unpatched vulnerability in Adobe software. Hackers obtained access to approximately 160,000 Social Security numbers, along with the names and driver’s license numbers of millions of people. Washington’s AOC responded immediately. They collaborated with the state’s executive branch, including the Office of Chief Information Officer and Consolidated Technology Services, along with other organizations, to manage the response and improve security measures, according to a statement from Michael Cockrill, CIO ( -)$./!0+/2 0-012 #$.1% /%+,(-0.+/2 %%.'1, 2013).

The AOC communicated with potential victims and explained the attack to the public. They launched a website and hotline to answer questions about the breach. Finally, they undertook significant security enhancements to prevent another breach. Other recent victims of cyberattacks include the Columbiana County Juvenile Court and Kankakee County Circuit Clerk’s Office in Ohio, as well as the Minnesota Judicial Branch.

Court data assets are valuable for cybercriminals for several reasons. First, this information could be used for criminal purposes.

Second, holding this type of data for ransom can force court officials to pay to restore their access, as Columbiana County and Kankakee County both did in recent years. Third, access to judiciary systems could enable cybercriminals to manipulate court data records, placing the credibility of the judicial process in peril.

Fourth, confidential records could be used as part legal strategy in a host of docket types. Finally, data breaches can bring court opera-

tions to a halt as response measures are executed.

The National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) designates security and risk management as the top priority facing state government (see State CIO Top Ten Policy and Technology Priorities for 2018).

Court systems cannot address this complex priority alone. Appropriate for the judicial branch, Agranoff and McGuire in #+**- +,-0. 12 & *.'

-/-!1(1/0 (2003) define publicsector collaborative management as “the process of facilitating and operating in multi-organizational arrangements to solve problems that cannot be solved, or solved easily, by single organizations� (p. 4).

In addition to critical practices to employ internally, courts require the resources of executive and legislative branches to best address cyber threats. Any collaborative partnership should have clearly established roles and responsibilities for each party.

Preventing Cyberattacks A multifaceted approach is required to prevent data breaches and begins with a detailed cybersecurity strategic plan. The plan’s mission is to develop, implement, and maintain appropriate cybersecurity programs. As a result, the strategic plan helps to limit damage, minimize work stoppage, and aid law enforcement in any investigation. It should be a living document that adapts to new information. In this phase, identifying and understanding digital data assets is a vital step to protecting them. Court officials must be aware of relevant laws, statutes, and standards that guide

their recordkeeping process.

Once assets and system vulnerabilities are identified, IT staff can establish layers of protection and monitoring protocols. Regular testing of cyberattack defenses is essential, as is adjusting systems to new threats. As part of the strategic plan, clear cybersecurity metrics should be designated. For example: How are information systems evaluated in real time?

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), within the United States Department of Commerce, provides highly regarded standards, practices, and policies to follow for evaluating cyberattack defenses.

Another important question: How often are security systems audited?

A cybersecurity audit, often performed by an independent party, is a methodical validation of cyber policies and their accompanying control mechanisms.

State legislatures have a pivotal role in cybersecurity defense. The legislative branch is responsible for regulating information technology practices, passing laws for cybercrime, and providing funding for enhanced security. Keeping pace with cybercriminals requires state courts to be on the cutting edge of security and virus detection technology. Investing in preventative security measures can save more money than recovering assets and covering losses. Cyber-liability insurance is a fast growing tool that helps organizations cover the financial burden of cybersecurity incidents. In an era of challenges for public budgeting, courts should carefully tailor their funding requests to provide an appropriate defense. Established communication channels with legislative com-

February/March 2019 18

W W W .C OU R TS TODAY .CO M

mittees, in addition to executivebranch agencies, are critical to understanding cybersecurity developments.

Judicial and administrative leaders create the culture of cybersecurity within their organization.

Communication, threat awareness, and security education are central to building a robust culture focused on minimizing security risks. People, not systems, are often the weakest link in cybersecurity defenses. Workplace technology policies, regular employee training, and computer-user agreements are key steps to prevent compromising activity. This is particularly important for social-engineering attacks on employees, which directly target individuals.

Responding to Cyberattacks Even with the best of intentions and diligent preventative measures, data breaches happen. A cyber-incident response team should be created in the planning process. Immediate, strategic action on the part of the victimized organization is required to minimize damage and expedite recovery. Essential first steps for courts include pinpointing the area of intrusion, minimizing exposure and attack surface, and understanding the scope of the attack.

For example: Was just a familycourt case management system compromised? Was the breach confined to only certain courts in the state? Data on all attack-related events must be collected and logged, as it will be vital in the attack investigation.

After a breach is discovered, the attack should be reported to at least

one law-enforcement agency.

Within the federal executive branch, the United States Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and FBI provide guidelines and best practices for responding to cyberattack incidents.

These agencies supply secure forms to report cyber incidents for analysis. The Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MSISAC), created by DHS, is the key resource for cyber-threat prevention, protection, response, and

“Many are negatively impacted by a cyberattack on a court: litigants, witnesses, victims, judges, lawyers, court staff, the organization itself, and the public as a whole.� recovery for state and local governments. MS-ISAC is a voluntary and collaborative effort that serves as a central resource for situational awareness and incident response for state and local governments.

Membership is open to all state and local governments at no cost. The Washington State AOC collaborated with MS-ISAC to determine the scope of their 2013 data breach.

In addition to data-asset threats, shutting down court systems because of a cyberattack can have massive operational impact on normal court business. In these instances, courts must be able to hold time-sensitive and constitutionally mandated hearings, as well as issue warrants and orders.

Courts also have to consider filing

access for those parties bound by a filing statute of limitations. When necessary, impacted jurisdictions can issue an order tolling case activity during operational disruption.

Sharing timely and accurate information to all impacted by the breach is crucial. Once the type of attack is identified and understood, sharing this information with other court systems is beneficial. Creating a heightened awareness for specific attacks, along with actionable information, provides great value to the court community.

Summary State court systems have an extraordinary responsibility as the public guardians of sensitive digital data assets. Fortunately, the judicial branch is up to the challenge. The best administration of justice has long required the use of modern management techniques in daily court operations (Tolman, 1960).

Safeguarding confidential court records remains essential to protecting the rights and liberties of individuals and organizations. To harness the resources necessary to protect the public’s data, the threats posed by cyberattacks must be met with increased internal coordination and collaboration across branches.

Through this process, courts can establish a data-governance framework that protects the privacy of all involved in the judicial process. CT ,.-/2 "2 ' -&!$*./2.)2-/2- &/'02%-' &*0 2(1( 1,2 .0$20$12 1 -,0(1/02+% & *.'2 (./.)0,-0.+/ 2 .**-/+ -2 /. 1,).0 "22 '1, 01 2%,+(2 ,1/ )2./2 0-012#+&,0) "2 2 -0.+/-*2#1/01,2%+,2 0-01 #+&,0)"2 & *.)$1 2 .0$2 1,(.)).+/"22

February/March 2019 20

W W W .C OU R TS TODAY .CO M

BY DONNA R OG E R S , E D ITO R

DRIVING A DIGITAL DATA PATH

SOFTWARE THAT HANDLES ALL YOUR DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT NEEDS.

*#(& $+'% + (# !*%)+!'%' *!*%)+'&*+')+) *+#(&*+( +!($)+#( &)$ + $"%*$$ &(#*$$*$ + *+ ) (+ * *!*%)$+ '&*+ "&*#) + &* ')* + '##(& "% + )(+ '+ ')"(%' *%)*&+ (&+ )')*+ ( &)$+ )*# %( ( + &*$( &#*+ " * + (# !*%)+ !'%' *

!*%)+ (# $*$+ (%+ ( + ) *+ #( &)$+ ( )'"% '# "&*+ (# !*%)$+ " *+ &*#(& $ !'%' *!*%)+ (# $*$+(%+#'&*+'% +$)(&' *+' )*&+'# "$")"(% + %+'%+* (&)+)( "! &( *+ #( &)+ ( *&')"(%$+ '% + !'%' *+ %& + ' *& (& + ) * + &) *& !'% +$)')*+#( &)$+ ' *+"%+ '#)+"! *!*%)* +* *#)&(%"#+#( &)+&*#(& $+

'% + * *#)&(%"#+ ')'+ !'%' *!*%)+ $ $)*!$+ + *$*+ (& ( + !'%

' *!*%)+ $ $)*!$+ ( )'"%+ ')'+ &(!+ '&"( $+ $( &#*$ + ) *%+ ' )(!')"#' &* '#)+ '% + #(% *&)+ )(+ " ")' + " *$ + ' ( "% + ( + )(+ $)&*'! "%*+ ) *+ ( + ( " ")' +"% (&!')"(%+) ')+"$+*'$ +)(+$)(&*+'% +&*)&"* * *&*+'&*+$(!*+( +) *+ *' "% +$( &#*$+)(+ (( +') +

Serving Up Information JWorks for Courts puts the power of managing information with the court—where it belongs.

Equal parts case, matter, participant, financial, and event management, JWorks serves up the information when and how the court needs it. A robust workflow engine guides milestones, resources, and work assignments, helping the court run smoothly and within prescribed guidelines. Responsively designed so no matter where you are or which device you choose, you can access the application. The JWorks Dynamic Case and Workflow Management engine provides flexible rules-driven options for setting milestones, events, tasks, deadlines, and specific business procedures. DCWM is used to assign and guide cases down “pathways� that are most appropriate for the case type, offense or matter.

1.800.406.4333 info@equivant.com www.equivant.com February/March 2019x

WWW . C OU R T ST OD AY . CO M

21

Document Management Tyler’s Odyssey® features a document management application that makes thousands of documents seamlessly available across all Odyssey applications in one centralized location. This enables you to streamline the flow of digital information, reduce costs, eliminate paper, and save time. The document management application also allows distributed file storage for remote offices while images are routinely uploaded to central servers for backup. Odyssey’s flexible workflow is customized to the court’s and users’ needs and facilitates easy electronic document rout-

ing between the judge and clerk for reviewing and signing documents.

Supporting documents can be bundled together for a judge to review, such as a motion and the proposed order. The electronic filing system supports scanned images, word documents, spreadsheets, redaction of sensitive information, and more, and stores electronically received images including faxes, PDFs, forms, and emails. An intuitive, powerful indexing and search system allows you to easily retrieve documents instead of navigating unclear directory structures.

1.800.431.5776 cjsales@tylertech.com www.tylertech.com

Artificial Intelligence AI (artificial intelligence) software transforms processing of court documents, eliminating up to 90 percent of human labor spent

on review, data validation, data entry and redaction for efiled/scanned documents, according to Computing System Innovations (CSi). It features usertrainable document separation, classification, data extraction, redaction and robotic process automation. Its program Intellidact LBX is trained by pointing and clicking on example documents and data items to extract or redact.

Once trained, it processes new documents, extracting data to automatically validate efilings/perform additional docketing data entry. It is reported to transform unstructured document data to structured court data and adapts automatically to documents changes over time. info@csisoft.com www.csisoft.com

Enterprise Integration The iJustice® value-added solution suite is designed for courts to achieve advanced eCourt and integrated justice goals. It is reported to be feature rich and works in complement with your current court systems. The software per-

forms as the central hub that enables courts and all other justice departments to connect, automate paper and data and image processing workflows in addition to elec-

tronic delivery of real-time information. Leveraging artificial intelligence, it intelligently orchestrates workflows and automatically delivers information and custom alerts to better serve court users, partners, AOC’s, and the public while improving productivity, efficiency, speed, and service. It offers the ability to automate paper forms and electronic media processing, plus the ability to monitor, audit, and manage information flows from a central console. It can be set up to recognize certain events, transactions, or conditions and intelligently take calculated actions, such as receiving, sending and orchestrating case information and documents to various locations simultaneously, enable intelligent kiosks and portals, trigger alerts, pre-fill forms, send emails and text messages, and more. info@issintl.com

Leverage Your Opinions Decisia enables courts to leverage their opinions by self-publishing them on their own website or intranet. Over 100 courts, tri-

bunals, boards, agencies and other legal bodies use Decisia to organize their legal decisions and make them available and easy to search on their own websites or intranets.

With customizable fields, design and approaches to data input, it’s flexible enough to meet any publishing requirements.

See https://opinions.arcourts.gov for an example of the way the software self publishes your opinions.

February/March 2019 22

W W W .C OU R TS TODAY .CO M

1.855.316.2100 info@lexum.com https://lexum.com/decisia/

Document Manager Courts need a document repository that can store, retrieve and manage official documents without worrying how many users are logged into the system when efiling or in public access, and can be assured that the documents sent by filers are protected and maintained. In CEDAR DMS by Tybera the storage/retrieval of documents is designed to come from the efiling/CMS system not from client

interface. An administrative interface makes changes to documents/manages where documents are stored and is designed to be administered by few individuals rather than many clients or users.

801.226.2746 www.tybera.com

Secure Microfilm Conversion BMI’s Digital ReeL software is the complete solution for your archival microfilm/microfiche

records. By creating a virtual replica of your microfilm we ensure that 100% of the images have been captured. Digital ReeL includes global text search functionality to reduce file search times and grayscale image enhancement for optimal legibility. Digital ReeL is offered as a hosted solution with two sites for disaster recovery. As a CJIS-listed vendor, BMI Imaging Systems, Inc. provides secure scanning and hosting services through our Digital ReeL platform.

408.736.7444 x217 wwhitney@bmiimaging.com www.bmiimaging.com

ogy correctly routes documents for case triage or quality control, and determines the workflow, without a human having to review the document. While processing documents we can identify and redact private information that needs to be withheld from the public. In addition, the software offers features including image enhancement tools, file prioritization, and an analytics dashboard that can be easily configured to suit the needs of different groups of court staff.

608.821.6520 info@extractsystems.com www.extractsystems.com

Reduce Tedious Processes with Artificial Intelligence

Manage Content, Processes & Cases

Extract’s Platform uses OCR and Artificial Intelligence to

OnBase, a single platform for managing content, processes and cases, is used in thousands of organizations to manage courts, accounts payable, human resources, IT, contract manage-

reduce tedious, time-consuming manual processes for courts. The software captures relevant courtdefined data and ties it to an existing case in your CMS or creates information for a new case, without needing someone to manually key the information. Our technol-

ment and other functions. OnBase connects to a court’s CMS and other platforms so the court can electronically manage both data and documents. Through the use of electronic workflows, workloads are automatically balanced, such as in Filing Review, and managing clerks gain real-time visibility into operations. The software automatically provides an audit trail for every action which makes retracing steps easier and provides metrics not possible with paper.

855.533.3366 marketing@imagesoftinc.com www.imagesoftinc.com

February/March 2019x WWW . C OU R T ST OD AY . CO M

23

BY G . F. G U ERC I O, CO N T R I B U T I N G E D IT O R

The CMS: You Can’t Just Buy It and Forget It! Updates, enhancements, configurations— it’s all part of keeping your CMS humming along. ave you ever heard or played a piano or violin expecting beautiful music but instead got missed notes and off-key sounds? Just like an instrument left unattended without tuning, cleaning and care, a case management system (CMS) ignored can drop functions and run off kilter. Updating new functionality rights the system to meet the court’s needs, directing them into the most harmonious performance.

The best way to stay up to date on CMS technology is to implement the releases that are usually available from your CMS supplier, says Sue Humphreys, director of Industry Relations at equivant.

“Updates may be handled differently by different CMS suppliers; at equivant, updates are available for direct download by the court

H

through our customer care portal.

We provide quarterly updates that include general improvements and fixes as well as customer-requested enhancements.”

It’s important that courts, especially larger courts, have someone in a court technology officer-type position who is responsible for anticipating future court tech needs and ensuring that the CMS vendor will meet their needs now, as well as proactively meet their needs in the future, notes Bozidar Dangubic, Justice Systems Inc. (JSI), system architect and software engineer.

And, for an on-premise solution, the update scenario is typically self-activated, or for major updates, it may potentially rely on the vendor, adds JSI’s chief technical officer, Jim Mortensen. For a cloud/hosted solution, updates are typically automatic. As for the timeline, “Generally speaking, major update releases occur every

12 to 18 months, maintenance releases typically occur every quarter and patch releases are pushed through as needed,” he explains.

Tyler views an implementation as the beginning of a continuing, supportive relationship, relays Michael Kleiman, director of marketing at Tyler Technologies Courts & Justice Division. As continuous improvement is the key to longterm success, Tyler is committed to helping clients make the most of their software long after the system go-live date, he says. “Our goals are to encourage the use of new features and functions, protect and maximize investment with support and consultations, help grow and advance an organization by using the latest technology.”

He furthers, “Our maturity model scorecard identifies key characteristics of progressive levels of technology, from basic to advanced, and helps clients hon-

February/March 2019 24

W W W .C OU R TS TODAY .CO M

estly assess the current state of their software effectiveness. We then help clients determine areas of improvement that are the most valuable and important to them and then set annual objectives for implementation and create goals

for adjusting your procedures.

“We have a continuous improvement initiative, EverGuide,” Kleiman points out, “that includes training and consulting after implementation to ensure our clients are always get-

Added Functionality in Minnesota Courts Information provided by Richard Slowes, former commissioner of Minnesota Supreme Court In March 2003, the Minnesota appellate courts went live with the core system of clerk’s office functionality—case initiation and docketing—in a new appellate court case management system.

Court-specific functionality that was included in the original contract, including separate customized calendaring and opinion processing functions for the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, as well as an extensive set of canned reports, came in a second deployment in early 2004. The CMS continues to function well and effectively, more than a decade after its initial launch.

Additional functionality has been added over the years, some as ongoing enhancements provided for in the initial contract and some more substantial additions when funding became available. Two of the more significant additions were the public version that went live in April 2007, and e-notification in June 2011.

Thomson Reuters Court Management Solutions has been a provider of court case management solutions since 1999. CTrack case management solution was developed specifically for courts to capture, track, process, and report on their cases.

Courts around the country, including the Minnesota Appellate Court, have adopted the solutions.

For more information, contact Thomson Reuters Court Management Solutions, 877.923.7800 or visit legalsolutions.com/CTrack-CMS.

ting the most from their technology investment. It’s all part of our evergreen philosophy, which ensures our clients benefit from continually enhanced technology for the life of their products, as well as lower cost of ownership.”

Evergreen systems, also called “software assurance” by some suppliers, entitle the court to ongoing updates even if it requires moving to the vendor’s next generation CMS, an entirely new system, and not just a new version of their current system, Humphreys says.

“For example, at equivant, a court using our CourtView CMS can migrate to our new JWorks CMS without reinvesting in software licenses.

“Once you’ve installed the latest version of your CMS, you still need to review the release notes and, if necessary, configure or implement the changes that are of interest to your court,” she says.

Depending on specific updates, the court may benefit from online or in-person training from their vendor. “Another important consideration is to periodically review how you are using the software and ask your CMS supplier if there are capabilities your court is not taking full advantage of. At equivant, we host update webinars where we step through changes and field questions.”

Life Expectancy of a CMS Humphreys notes the technological life expectancy of a CMS “depends on the court, their volume, their level of IT expertise, and other operational needs.”

Historically, courts have tended to replace their CMS at about the 12February/March 2019x

WWW . C OU R T ST OD AY . CO M

25

to 15-year mark but there are plenty of courts still using systems they implemented in the late ’90s or early 2000s—and in some cases those systems are still getting the job done for them, she says. “It has a lot to do with the technology backbone of the specific CMS: does it let them adjust for new laws and rules, add in components that better-serve their customers (like online access and efiling), and run in an environment that’s easily supported? Is the user interface uncomplicated, does it streamline their processes, and at the end of the day, does it help or hinder moving cases forward accurately, timely, and equitably?”

Expanding on that, JSI’s Mortensen says a CMS reaches its “end life” when it no longer meets the court’s foreseeable needs from a functional, maintenance, security, and cost perspective. “That said, as long as the CMS vendor is updating and maintaining their solution to meet the court’s needs, a vendor’s solution certainly could be used indefinitely.”

Technological life expectancy of a CMS could be as long as 20-plus years, as long as the vendor provides regular updates, he adds.

“Of course, it’s important to factor in major technology paradigm shifts, such as web, cloud computing, mainframe, client-server, etc., which likely require significant CMS re-architecture.”

Mortensen acknowledges there are several indicators that it’s time to update or replace your CMS. Increased difficulty and cost associated with maintaining your mainframe solution, as well as difficulty interfacing with third-party justice partners will become evident. “Increased security risks

with regard to the lack of updates to the underlying technology components is also a point of concern.”

“Additionally, you will find it difficult, and likely expensive, to provide the functionality required by new laws, for instance, providing public interfaces to court data, or providing online payment functionality,” adds Dangubic, the JSI system architect.

Humphreys agrees there are plenty of signs that a CMS is ready for “sunset,” which she outlines: • The court is struggling to maintain outdated infrastructure or equipment just to operate their CMS.

underlying CMS. Kleiman notes an outdated system can lead to case backlogs, insufficient data, slower routing of information to judges and clerks, and more. “Essentially, an outdated system adds more time and more work, creating an inefficient process that slows down the court’s workflow, which leads to fewer cases being heard and processed in comparison to if a more modern, up-to-date case management system was in place.”

Most courts rightfully want a comprehensive, end-to-end solution that can be customized to do anything, according to Kendall

“Court systems are complicated, so the ideal CMS wish list tends to be very long.

It’s not uncommon for a court to identify hundreds of functions a new system must encompass.”

—Kendall Smith, Thomson Reuters Kendall Smith, business development manager, Thomson Reuters Court Management Solutions

• The CMS does not allow for updates to meet new rules, laws, or court preferences.

• The CMS is not extendable and cannot integrate well with new technologies.

• The court cannot streamline their internal processes because the CMS isn’t adaptable.

• Customer (public/partner) service is impeded due to the

Smith, Thomson Reuters Court Management Solutions’ business development manager: A solution that can provide the court with flawlessly smooth workflow processes, that is easy to manage and operate that integrates seamlessly with every other system in existence, that can adapt and evolve to meet the court’s changing needs.

February/March 2019 26

W W W .C OU R TS TODAY .CO M

As court jurisdictions nationwide migrate from legacy computer systems to more technologically diverse case-management systems, among the factors complicating this critical decision are the burden of larger caseloads, differing judi-

cial processes, e-filing standards, integration challenges, tighter budgets, and scalability for the future, she says. “Public pressure for greater expediency and transparency in judicial matters only exacerbates the risk of choosing the wrong system. Court systems are complicated, so the ideal CMS wish list tends to be very long. It’s not uncommon for a court to identify hundreds of functions a new system must encompass.�

The best case scenario can unfold, says Smith, if the core CMS is extremely robust, already contains most of the functionality the court desires, and can be easily

configured to bridge the small gaps between the system’s already comprehensive suite of functions and the court’s specific needs.

Configuration, in this case, means the CMS may only need minor modifications to add wished-for capabilities or adapt functions that already exist.

Starting with a robust base product and providing built-in configurability and continual updates allows your court to invest in evergreen technology that does not grow outdated, says Smith. “Our flexible contracting terms meet the needs of smaller courts that require full IT support to the largest court systems that prefer to ‘take the keys’ of our system and manage many aspects with their own IT experts. “No CMS is perfect right out of the gate; some configuration is always going to be necessary,� advises Smith, but with a strong, intelligently-designed core CMS, one that has been developed from the ground up for the specific purpose of executing best in-class case-management practices, con-

figuring elements of the CMS that already exist may be sufficient to reach the desired performance targets.

As the CMS is all about performance, keeping the system tuned to the court’s needs whether through enhancements, configurations, updates, or, in some cases, an entirely new system, the increased functionality will keep things humming along so you feel like you "#(+)- can forget about it. CT

+$* $- .$*%& +$("-%+& % "&- * , , %& + . % "&-,'+( !!!,. % "&-,'+( #.$* .' &+#+ %.) * , , ' )"#.) - #.$-.' ,'+(* !!!,- #.$-.' ,'+(

)-%'.* )-.()* &',* * , , !!!, )-%'.) )-.(),'+( +()+&* . -.$) * .& "##* (%- *" , , .& "##, (%- - +()+&$. -.$),'+( February/March 2019x

WWW . C OU R T ST OD AY . CO M

27

February/March 2019 28

W W W .C OU R TS TODAY .CO M

February/March 2019x WWW . C OU R T ST OD AY . CO M

29