National Center for State Courts

 

Improving Justice through Leadership
and Service to the Courts

      

  

CTC Session Articles

Education Session Article

This article was written in support of a presentation given at CTC5 in 1997.

Use of Electronic Appeal Transcripts in the Alberta Court of Appeal

By Roger P. Kerans

I. INTRODUCTION

The Publication of Transcripts

The lifeblood of the judicial appeal process is arguably the transcribed record of events at trial. The trial transcript, either in whole or in part, forms the evidence portion of an appeal and is a major component of the materials filed in advance of an appeal hearing. On appeal, the court scrutinizes the trial testimony in search of the errors alleged by the party seeking review of the trial decision.

In almost all jurisdictions, the record of the trial traditionally has been prepared by skilled court stenographers and published in hard-copy format in accordance with the rules governing local court procedure. There are five critical facts about these publications:

  1. Transcripts are often very long. True, the size can vary immensely from a few pages for a brief hearing to hundreds of pages for a longer trial, but they are often very long.
  2. For the most part, transcripts are used just for a very short time, during the appeal, and then are discarded.
  3. The number of copies is usually small--one copy of the materials for each lawyer and each judge, for a total of 12 or less in most cases. (In some jurisdictions--for example, the United States Supreme Court--there is also a market for the materials among persons not directly involved in the case, but this is rare.)
  4. They are carefully studied. Lawyers "mine" the materials for possible errors and for answers to the arguments of opposing parties. Transcripts are reviewed with immense care by judges and their researchers, and these readers employ every conceivable study guide--bookmarks, annotations, marginalia, indices, and cross-indices.
  5. Generally, they are not read cover to cover, like novels, but are studied on a selective basis, in the search for what is relevant, like encyclopaedia.

The Problems

The Court of Appeal of Alberta, whose system is here reported on, operates much like appellate courts the world over. As such, it is plagued by many of the problems inherent in the use of hard-copy publishing. First, transcript preparation is often an expensive proposition, costing thousands of dollars. In Alberta, trial transcripts in 1995 cost about $4.45 (CDN) per page. Each week of trial time usually results in more than 500 printed pages. Moreover, local procedural rules dictated that at least eight copies of the materials, called "appeal books" in Alberta, be prepared: six filed with the court and at least one for each party to the appeal. Second, lengthy appeal books created handling and storage problems for court clerks, judges, and litigants. With more than 1,000 appeals filed in 1994, the volume of paper that passed through the Alberta Court of Appeal was substantial. Lastly, hard-copy publishing is, in an environmental sense, a wasteful process, particularly so given the relatively short useful life of appeal books. All copies of the filed books but one are discarded, albeit for recycling, once the court renders its decision in a case.

A Solution

The Alberta Court of Appeal recognized a potential opportunity to resolve these and other paper-related problems through the use of electronic publishing software. Recent advances in computer software and technology have led to the development of inexpensive, commercially available programs that enable the production of electronic documents similar in substance to printed documents yet read from a computer screen. Like printed documents, electronic documents can contain text and pictures, tables of contents, and indices. In addition, electronic documents offer many benefits over paper:

  1. Large amounts of information can be contained on a single computer disk, thus allowing much easier storage, transport, and handling than an equivalent amount of printed material.
  2. Information in electronic form can be quickly and inexpensively disseminated. Producing multiple copies of a document is a simple matter.
  3. Electronic publishing provides numerous tools for information management that are simply unavailable when using paper. Key information can be quickly and easily searched, catalogued, and extracted, thereby leading to improved information management.
  4. The ease of access facilitates scheduling of appeals by permitting off-site judges to review materials more expeditiously.

These and other features make electronic publishing an attractive alternative to paper, especially where lengthy documents, not subject to frequent modification, are involved.

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently completed a pilot project to test the viability of electronic appeal books. This article chronicles the efforts of the court to implement the project and discusses the mechanics of the software the court selected for the task. It concludes with a general discussion of the court's experiences with electronic publishing to date and its future plans for the medium within the judicial appeal process.

II. PROJECT HISTORY

After occasional test cases as early as 1989, some members of the Court developed a considerable interest in electronic data reading. In early 1992, the chief justice of the court requested an investigation into the feasibility of using electronic publishing for appeal books and related materials submitted to the court. A steering committee and a working committee, each consisting of appellate judges, court services personnel, court reporters, and lawyers, were formed to investigate, develop, and implement a proposal.

We pause here to emphasize that, in Alberta, the judges do most of their own preparation for appeals. They have limited staff assistance. To prepare for an appeal, the judge typically reads carefully the written argument of both parties to the appeal, the relevant cited authorities, and the relevant reasons for decision or decisions or jury charge of the trial court. While they rely on the trial decision and the "fact summaries" filed by the counsel for the basic facts about the suit, the judges also must, depending on the ground of appeal, read the actual trial evidence. Sometimes the nature of the case is such that the judge must read the trial transcript from start to finish. However, this is rare and almost impossible in this age. More often, judges read selectively. They read those passages that are of importance to the issues raised in the appeal by the parties. We also emphasize that lively and sometimes lengthy oral argument yet occurs in Alberta, with many references to the transcripts.

Working Committee

Initially, the working committee examined the viability of securing trial transcripts in electronic form. Fortunately, the Court Reporters Office, responsible for recording trial evidence in Alberta, had been using computer-aided transcription to generate trial transcripts in electronic format for several years. Unfortunately, not all court stenographers in that office used the same system or provided an end product in the same format, although all were capable of supporting basic ASCII text files (American Standard Code for Information Interchange--a universal standard that can be easily accommodated by most text-reading computer programs). Similarly, court stenographers in private industry also prepared appeal materials for clients. Again, however, the court discovered a wide difference in work methods, but a general ability to work with ASCII text files.

The working committee next solicited from lawyers, judges, and court clerks their reactions and opinions on the use of electronic publishing within the judicial appeal process. Persons familiar with computers and associated technology embraced the idea as a sort of merge onto the information superhighway. In fact, several law firms were already using text readers to manage large litigation files. The committee also discovered, however, that some lawyers and judges remained largely unversed in computer use. These persons sought reassurances that hard-copy format would remain an alternative, at least for the near future. In addition, it became obvious that the court should not require the use of any particular software. It was felt that law firms should have free choice from the variety of available products, dependent on their individual needs. Finally, the committee noted that most lawyers, like the judges, were already thoroughly committed to personal as opposed to mainframe computer hardware.

Computer Standards

The steering committee quickly decided to employ a PC-centred system, with possible reliance on a local area network (LAN) in the future. Materials were to be loaded into the judges’ individual computers. Judges and lawyers each work in their own way and at their own speed, even in the courtroom during a hearing, and it was felt that neither would be satisfied with a shared screen and a common display. More importantly, judges usually prepare for cases privately and would need to access materials on their personal computers. The committee also noted that most of the judges used laptop computers. While the laptops were regularly upgraded and a LAN system was promised for the near future, the committee accepted certain limitations and problems for the choice of system to accommodate this office arrangement. The limits on selection of a system then were three: the need for "sneakerware" distribution, a limit on both RAM and ROM memory, and the need for user-generated display.

Ultimately, the steering committee settled on the need for an ASCII-based system. This choice permitted the court to build on the existing system and court stenographers, both public and private, to continue providing transcription services with little change. Also, most text readers and document managers employed by lawyers could accommodate ASCII files, and this choice in no way impaired that ability.

Graphics

Trial materials routinely include paper exhibits as well as transcriptions of evidence. Many of these paper materials also could be reproduced in electronic form. However, after initial tests, the working committee became concerned about the quality and cost of scanning for conversion to electronic form. Moreover, the display of graphics files by many applications was disconcertingly slow. After some hesitation, the committee decided not to add scanned documents as part of the original project, but hoped this feature could be added later. This decision was driven largely by practical limitations. At that time, the official court reporters lacked the ability to produce more than the trial transcript in electronic form. However, it was also hoped that this move would result in a smoother introduction of electronic documents generally for both litigants and the court. Notwithstanding these minimum requirements, litigants with the inclination and ability to file more of the book in electronic form were encouraged to do so.

As a result, the committee accepted the continuing need for a paper transcript of exhibits, pleadings, and the like. In Alberta these came to be called "truncated appeal books" to emphasize that they did not contain a transcript of the testimony.

"Reader" Software

Perhaps the most important task facing the working committee was the assessment of commercially available software packages to determine which ones, if any, could provide the tools sought by the court at an acceptable cost. In total, more than 30 "document manager," "electronic publishing," and "text database" programs were identified for initial consideration. The committee felt that a broad search was warranted because the project did not fall squarely inside any accepted software category and, in any event, these categories were not well defined. The criteria used to evaluate these programs were ease of use, the ability to generate text with minimal hands-on effort, avoidance of impairment of original text, emulation of the paper product, and variety and effectiveness of document-handling tools. Each requires fuller discussion.

1. Ease of Use

Ease of use for both the stenographers who prepare the books and the end users, judges and court clerks, was considered particularly important, as most of these persons had minimal computer experience. The electronic documents had to be easy to read and simple to manipulate. Moreover, the electronic product had to be easier to use than the current paper system. This eliminated many programs.

It also became quickly apparent that products that use a graphical interface are much more intuitive to use. Such products have pop-up Windows(TM) and icons, often in a Microsoft Windows(TM) format, which are easily manipulated. Persons familiar with other Windows(TM) applications can adapt easily to such programs. They were considered, therefore, much superior to MS-DOS-based programs.

2. Automatic Generation

The capacity for automatic and flexible generation of the final electronic document, including accompanying tables of contents and indices, was also considered important given the relatively large number of appeals heard each year and the relatively short active life of the information. Essentially, the software needed the ability to quickly create, with minimal user setup, a standard yet malleable end product. The committee sought to dedicate the least human resources possible to the preparation of documents to keep production costs to a minimum.

3. No Impairment of Original Text

The court decided that, for the purpose of the pilot project, counsel and judge should be free to employ paper copies if they prefer them. Further, the committee expected that even later stages of any electronic appeal book program would likely entail a period of mixed paper and electronics or different "reader" software. For example, in the course of a public hearing, some lawyers and judges might be looking at the printed page while others read a screen. Those looking at the screen would not all necessarily use the same software. Yet, when somebody said, "Now, let us look at line 190 on page 1354," everybody must be able to find the same spot without confusion or delay. The court therefore required that the chosen program maintain the integrity of the original trial transcript and other documents when assembled into electronic format. It was also extremely important that the electronic copy exactly duplicate the text of the original documents without easily allowing inadvertent alteration. A word processor for that reason, and many others, would not do.

In the end, this condition proved to be the most difficult to meet. In Alberta, the formats for transcripts put into "appeal books" are rigorously regulated by the court. Each page required special headers and footers, and there were other sophisticated format requirements. The court needed a document reader that could "see" and respect format commands used in the paper world.

In that regard, the court started with the great advantage of the cooperation of the "official" court stenographers, called in Alberta the "Court Reporters." This office was charged with recording trial proceedings by tape or shorthand typewriter and producing paper transcripts when requested. The reporters had, for some years, used computers in this process. Thus, an electronic ASCII-based text already was available. In some cases, as in rural areas, the only software used was the word processor. However, the reporters had already succeeded in establishing systems for publication that had led to the creation of electronic documents that met the court formatting standards. The new challenge was to adapt these systems for an electronic display. Fortunately, the court standards could be met within the ASCII limits, although the reporters had developed some clever work-arounds for some problems.

4. Emulation of Paper Aids

The steering committee believed it to be desirable that the product ultimately selected provide equivalents to the reading aids that exist in the paper world: indices, bookmarks, annotations or marginal notes, tables of contents, pagination, line numbers, highlighting, etc. It was felt that such emulation might reduce the resistance to electronic documents anticipated from some users.

The committee also sought a program with features which augmented traditional paper reading aids. The capacity to rapidly search and manipulate information and the availability of aids to organize and cross-reference text were important factors in evaluating the various programs.

5. Document-Handling Capacity

As noted, electronic transcripts are often very long. A program was sought that could accommodate massive files without appreciable, adverse impact on its ability to perform routine tasks such as jumping to locations within the text (for instance, through an index or table of contents entry) or searching for key words. Lawyers and judges would need to find a particular page within the electronic book at least as quickly as they could with paper. In this respect, some of the software packages tested, particularly those that incorporated word processors, were found unsuitable.

III. SOFTWARE SPECIFICATIONS

As noted above in detail, selected software must be capable of two functions: it must be able to build the new electronic "book" and it must be able to read it. What is required is a specialized form of software. It is not quite the same as a document manager, because it need not be capable of easy expansion and reindexing for new documents. On the contrary, once prepared, a transcript should never be changed or added to. Nor is this software quite the same as a document publisher, which has a heavy emphasis on graphics and expects a high labour input, or merely a word processor, because it need not have the power to edit text once it is "built" and it must have a speedy search capacity. We call this form of software a "document reader" and the process "electronic document reading" or EDR. There are few on the market today specifically designed for this function, but other software might be adapted, including Windows(TM) help files, Adobe Acrobat, Summation, Folio Views, or Asksam. Some packages, however, like SmarText(TM) and ZyIndex, seem designed just for this purpose.

The Alberta steering committee ultimately selected the document reader SmarText(TM), offered by Lotus Development Corporation, as suitable for initial trial use. SmarText(TM) is a microcomputer-based application that operates in the Microsoft Windows(TM) environment. It conforms to all Windows(TM) standards and therefore offers all of the advantages of the Windows(TM) graphical interface, including pull-down menus, multiple Windows(TM), icons, and mouse-activated buttons. Persons familiar with other Windows(TM) applications are able to understand its basic operation easily.

SmarText(TM) is not available in 32-bit architecture, and Lotus has announced it no longer will support the product. As a result, many prospective users will look elsewhere. Nevertheless, we shall describe how it works in order to offer some hint about what to look for in other software.

SmarText(TM) analyses the structure of source files using artificial intelligence techniques and automatically builds an electronic document with an outline, an index, and cross-referenced text links. It presents the information on screen in a form that emulates a printed book format. All the familiar things that can be done with printed documents, such as accessing information from a table of contents or index, taking notes, inserting a bookmark, or copying a section of text, can be done through SmarText(TM).

The SmarText(TM) program is composed of two basic components: a build function and a read function.

Building Documents Using SmarText(TM)

The build function allows users to create a single electronic document from a variety of user-selected text and graphic files. A number of common word processor and graphics packages including WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, AM Professional, DrawPerfect, and AmiDraw are supported. In assembling the final electronic document, the program automatically analyzes input documents, using user-specified standards, to create outlines and indices. The program also allows users to establish hypertext links, either manually or automatically, to connect occurrences of text or illustrations. The finished document maintains the integrity of the source files, displaying them in the order in which they were selected during the build process. The integrity of the source files is maintained throughout the build process, but the new index files almost double the amount of data.

SmarText(TM) automatically generates an outline, equivalent to a table of contents in book format, using either direct or indirect methods of analysis. Using the indirect method, SmarText(TM) can discern headings based on the occurrence of capitalized text, numbered text, or specially punctuated text within the source files. Using the direct method, SmarText(TM) generates headings based on occurrences of user-specified text strings or paragraph styles within the source files. Templates can also be prepared for repetitive build applications to provide consistency between documents and to save time. SmarText(TM) searches for such occurrences of text during the build process and lists them as headings in the final outline. Multiple levels for headings, comparable to the paper world, are also permitted. In this regard, the court has prepared files containing standard text strings usually found as headings in criminal and civil trial transcripts.

The word index created during the SmarText(TM) build process is comparable to an index found in a standard book. As with outlines, SmarText(TM) creates an index using indirect or direct analysis. The indirect method adds words to the index based upon the frequency with which they appear within the source files. Using the direct method, SmarText(TM) creates a default index based only upon the contents of user-specified keyword and stopword files. Keyword files contain words or phrases which the user wants included in the index, whereas stopword files contain those sought to be excluded. The court has set up several keyword files, subsisting of words or legal phrases commonly found within trial transcripts that are of interest to judges, for use in preparing electronic appeal books. As familiarity with the SmarText(TM) program and the use of electronic appeal books progress, the court may allow lawyers to submit case-specific keyword files.

Electronic documents created with the builder component of SmarText(TM) can be freely copied and distributed without the hindrance of licensing or royalty payments.

Reading Documents Using SmarText(TM)

The read function of SmarText(TM) allows users to access previously built documents. When the program is first activated, a "bookshelf" appears containing icons that represent created documents available for viewing. A particular electronic "book" is opened by selecting the representative icon.

Electronic documents are displayed in three separate Windows(TM): "text," "outline," and "index" Windows(TM). As is the case with other Windows(TM) based programs, a user may display Windows(TM) individually or may tile or cascade multiple Windows(TM).

SmarText(TM) provides a number of ways to navigate within a document. In the text window, a user can browse by page or jump to specific locations using a number of "shortcut" functions. Using the SmarText(TM) outline, a user can quickly display the particular section of text in the open document or an illustration that corresponds to a heading or subheading in the outline. Similarly, the index can be used to access the section of text in the open document that contains an instance or occurrence of the term or phrase identified in the index. Specific terms or phrases that do not appear in the index can still be located within the document using SmarText(TM)'s powerful search function. Searches utilize Boolean logic to evaluate the search terms and define their relationships to one another. SmarText(TM) identifies occurrences of text in the document that match the search terms and allows a user to access quickly and display the text that contains a selected occurrence. Searches can also be done across multiple documents. Unfortunately, full "fuzzy" searches cannot be performed.

SmarText(TM) also enables a user to navigate within a document using hypertext links. Links are similar to cross-references in a printed book and provide a connection between text or an illustration in one part of a document and related information located elsewhere. SmarText(TM) can generate links automatically when a document is built, or a user may add custom links later.

When reading an electronic document, a user can annotate it a number of ways. Using a "copy-and-paste tool," a user can copy text to a word processing application, where it can be edited, printed, or saved to another file. Alternatively, bookmarks and notes can be posted to specific locations in the document. Finally, the product permits a user to highlight selected text by use of special colours or fonts.

Finally, SmarText(TM) will emulate a printed page. With a smaller font, it will reproduce on screen the exact duplicate of the printed page. Moreover, it will permit alteration in fonts, and thus improved display, without any disruption of the page-search capacity, which continues to search on the page numbers inserted by the original document.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF A PILOT PROJECT

In April 1994, a pilot project utilizing electronic appeal books commenced. It encompassed appeals scheduled for hearing at the Appeal Court of Alberta in Calgary where the trial evidence was five days or more in duration. The simple objective of the project was to determine the real-life feasibility of electronic appeal books. A one-year trial period was anticipated.

For this project, litigants were not required to file a complete appeal book in electronic form. As has been mentioned, appeal books usually contain a transcript of trial events, copies of trial paper exhibits, reasons for judgement of the trial judge, and various opening and closing court documents. As an initial step, the court decided that only the trial evidence portion of the appeal books needed to be submitted to the court in electronic form. The remainder of the appeal book contents, called the "truncated appeal book," was to be filed in hard-copy format.

In addition to the electronic submission, litigants were required to file at least one complete hard-copy appeal book. The steering committee decided that access to a hard copy should always be possible in order to protect litigants from any unforeseen jeopardy that might befall initial use of the electronic books.

In initiating the pilot project, the court gave full consideration to the needs of counsel and judges unfamiliar or simply uncomfortable with using electronic documents. Litigants were provided the option of receiving their own copies of appeal books in either electronic or hard-copy form.

The copy of the electronic appeal book filed with the court was to be accompanied by SmarText(TM) support files so that judges could "read" it without a "build." Litigants could obtain these materials from the official court reporters or private court stenographers for a fee or could request only the trial evidence in electronic form, again for a fee, and build the appeal book themselves. The court made copies of the SmarText(TM) keyword files and setup parameters available to anybody who asked.

It was expected, at least during the hearing process, that most judges would use computers in the courtroom to access and refer to transcript evidence. Monitors were placed on the benches, and the clerks took on the daily task of collecting the judges’ computers and installing them for hearings. Counsel were allowed to utilize computers as well, and a computer at the counsel table became ordinary, if not routine.

Notwithstanding a number of growing pains, favourable results have been obtained to date with the pilot project. In January 1995, the court decided, therefore, to extend the pilot project to encompass all Alberta Court of Appeal cases, heard in either Calgary or Edmonton, where the trial evidence was five days duration or more. Plans were made to make the final assessment in July 1995. However, this deadline was not met.

V. COURT'S EXPERIENCE WITH ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPTS

The first case utilizing an electronic appeal book was heard by the court in September 1994. By the end of March 1995, a total of 15 electronic appeals had been heard. The limited number is explained by the long delay between the filing of materials and the inscription of a case for hearing. This delay has nothing to do with this project. It arises because lawyers need to find preparation time. "Paper" appeals were still being heard in Alberta throughout 1996 because the transcripts had been prepared before the project began. Also, many "electronic" transcripts prepared in 1995 only reached the judges in late 1996. As a result, the use of electronic documents spread more slowly than had been forecast. It was only by late 1996 that every judge on the court had sufficient experience to make a final decision about the innovation.

The steering committee, now called the EDR (for Electronic Document Reading) committee, made its final assessment in 1996. It decided that real progress had been made towards resolution of the problems that initially spurred the court to consider electronic appeal books.

Savings

A primary objective of the program was to reduce the volume of paper used on appeals, thereby reducing costs and paper waste and facilitating material storage and handling. In this respect, positive results had been achieved. Appeal books filed for electronic appeals were 50-75% shorter in length, on average, than conventional hard-copy appeals. For litigants, the reduction in volume translated to lower costs. The Calgary pilot project reported a 20% reduction, on average, in the cost to parties using electronic appeal books.

Ease of use

Participants commented favourably on the speed and efficiency with which information may be accessed and manipulated using the electronic books as compared to the printed version, particularly when information sought is spread throughout the text. This benefit has been most useful to judges, as they tend to read selectively in preparation for court, during hearings and in writing judgments. They no longer need to flip through the heavy appeal books, nor do they have to refer to the table of contents and look up information manually. In addition, they are able to prepare for appeals and write their judgments from any worksite.

Problems

The introduction of electronic appeal books had not been without difficulties, however. Many were simply "teething" problems associated with the initial setup of the program, such as establishing working standards by which the court reporters processed the books, familiarizing litigants with the court's filing requirements, and setting up courtrooms for computer use. Most problems were anticipated, and many were resolved through simple trial and error.

The court encountered only one significant formatting problem. SmarText(TM) could not read the page breaks in the standard text prepared by the court reporters. With the aid of the court's technical resources, and the generous cooperation of the reporters, a small formatting change solved the problem.

One of the more significant difficulties encountered in instituting the use of electronic books arose from the "technophobia" displayed by some lawyers and judges. Users who were not computer-literate displayed a reluctance to use the new technology and often fell back on old ways. However, initial diffidence has slowly given way as familiarity with the new process has increased. It is hoped that increased interest will be shown by all users as electronic books become more commonplace.

Another difficulty was the confusion attendant on being in both the paper and EDR worlds at the same time. As judges prepared for hearings, they had to move back and forth. Clerks sometimes forgot to load the text files for the judge. Moreover, the judges who were serious computer users were reluctant to give up their computers while the clerks performed this task.

There were no complaints by regular users about eyestrain or other problems associated with extended time before a computer monitor, although those who had not used the EDR option much expressed such apprehensions. Some judges spoke of the advantage of not having to carry about the heavy printed books. One judge, who has a problem with his eyes, found that the ability of the software to display large fonts was a boon. In general, the reaction of each judge to this new way seemed to be a direct reflection of his or her general attitude toward computerization. Those who viewed the trend with alarm were not enthusiastic about this project. Those who had embraced computers as valuable working tools were highly enthusiastic. One judge had a challenge the EDR committee could not meet: she liked to read the materials in bed!

Conclusion

The committee suggested to the court that EDR become the standard means of access to appeal books and that the court extend this to all appeals. It also suggested the continuation of the preparation of a "truncated" paper appeal book to accompany the electronic text, to include any material the reviewing judge was likely to read from cover to cover, like the pleadings, significant rulings, and the trial reasons for decision or jury charge. For the same reason, there is no plan to move to EDR of written argument. The committee also resolved that it would continue to study the preparation of exhibits for EDR. Counsel would be free to use or not use the new system. Also, a general review of future formatting standards was undertaken. The court agreed to adopt the idea with the proviso that a judge who had any difficulty with the new system could call for a print copy. So far none has, although judges may borrow the registrar's one print copy that is kept for archival purposes.

VI. FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN ALBERTA

32-bit EDR Software

After IBM bought Lotus, SmarText(TM) was withdrawn from the market. There are no upgrades and no future support. The court has undertaken a second review of new programs in the 32-bit universe with the idea of moving to a new reader in 1998. Fortunately, there are several intriguing new programs. (The British Columbia Court of Appeal in 1996 adopted Folio Views for this purpose, and the Manitoba Court of Appeal is looking at ISIS and ZyIndex.)

Sneakerware

Today, the new texts are loaded on computers from 3.5" floppies by the court clerks who also distribute the paper books. The EDR committee is looking at a possibly better means, including the establishment of a central server that readers can access either to read or to download texts. If that is not feasible, and in light of recent price reductions for CD-ROM publishing machines, it may employ CD-ROM disks instead of floppies.

Graphics and OCR

At present, the court is tapping only a small fraction of the foreseeable potential for electronic documents, both in terms of the scope of the submissions and the use parties can make of them. The next major step in the move towards fully electronic appeal books is the incorporation of the opening and closing court documents and trial exhibits. These documents often include forms, pictures, or handwritten notes available only in hard-copy format. However, such material can be optically scanned and converted into electronic form. Recent advances in technology and software have made conversion a viable option, one currently being investigated by the court. However, there are hurdles to the use of such technology, including memory limitations (graphics files are often very large) and legal issues surrounding the propriety of electronically reproduced documents. Pending resolution of these issues, a test case utilizing scanned documents will most probably be advanced before the end of 1997.

Law

At present, previously decided cases upon which litigants rely in support of their legal position are submitted in printed form. Almost always they are photocopies of existing print publications. These copies are made because, in Alberta, there is discussion of cases between counsel and judges in open court. Optical scanners could make it a fairly simple matter to obtain the text of cases in electronic form. More likely, the court will offer access to an electronic library of decisions in courtrooms. With the advent of more and more publicly accessible electronic databases containing past legal decisions, it is even possible the court may simply go "online" in the courtroom. Alternatively, it may choose a system that combines all of these features.

The submission to the court of written arguments, or factums, in electronic form also seems a natural progression towards fully electronic hearings. This step should be relatively straightforward given that most factums are now prepared using word processing programs. It would be a simple matter to combine the factums with the appeal book to form a single electronic submission. That could facilitate the development of integrated factums that might simplify the analysis of issues. Nevertheless, these plans will be tempered by the experience of the judges that the printed word bound in book form remains the most convenient way to read material from cover to cover.

Better Notes

As users of electronic appeal books become more familiar with the capabilities of the software, it is anticipated they will make better use of the available software tools. For example, users might build special indices or outlines to suit their particular needs, add cross-references between text or graphics passages, or make electronic notes annotated to portions of the case under appeal or within a separate linked file.

Staff Use

In a development contemporaneous with the EDR project, the court has engaged more research assistants. Increasingly, these assistants read the materials to help the judges in their preparation. They also use the EDR facilities. Nevertheless, most judges in Alberta consider preparation to be a personal and private effort.

New Format Standards

As the court moves out of the paper world, the paper-based formatting standards can be changed. For example, the court already has begun to drop pagination as a prime means of reference and has gone to line numbering. It is also looking at hypertexting and other features possible in the EDR world. As the world moves to the new standard of SGML for basic texts, the EDR project must be ready to take advantage of the new formatting possibilities.

All or Nothing?

The court must decide whether all transcripts in the future will be only in electronic form. The advantages of EDR for short transcripts is minimal, but the nuisance of having a foot in both worlds (paper and electronic) is significant. Similarly, there must be a decision as to whether to support, with paper, judges who refuse to adopt the new approach.

VII. SUMMARY

The implementation of electronic appeal books was undertaken to benefit the Court of Appeal of Alberta and litigants alike through reduced costs, easier material handling and storage, and improved access to, and manipulation of, evidence and argument. The initial stages of a pilot project have proven these to be realistic and economically achievable goals. Almost certainly, electronic appeal books will be permanently integrated into the judicial appeal process; likely in a comprehensive format to include all opening and closing documents, trial evidence, and exhibits. Notwithstanding initial reluctance displayed by some users, it is believed that those who take advantage of the new process will eventually find it a more effective and flexible document management medium.

Biographical Information

This biographical information may date from as far back as 1997. Please keep in mind that it may no longer be accurate.

Roger P. Kerans

Roger P. Kerans has just retired from the Court of Appeal of Alberta after 17 years of service. Previously, he was a trial judge with the District Court of Alberta and the Court of Queen's Bench, where he established a modern hearing-lists management system now used by Alberta and many other courts. His interest in modernization of courts led him to advocate court mergers and other structural changes. The merger of the courts in Alberta established a model since followed in every Canadian jurisdiction. With the cooperation of the Alberta government, he also established a program for reading appeal books on computers.