|
VirtualCourthouse: Issue 2.7
Litigation Integration II
Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt
Litigation integration is a concept which has been around for several decades, about as long as mainframe
computers. During the 1970s, with the advent of the mainframe computer in the court environment and its apparant
ability to manage large information databases, litigation integration -- then called justice integration -- became
a frequently discussed topic. The criminal court community, including the court, state's attorney, public defender,
sheriff, corrections department, juvenile probation and adult probation realized that they were using the same
basic information. They were entering the same information into separate databases maintained on the mainframe
computer. In most cases, they were precluded from sharing their databases because of the doctrine of separation of
powers. Each office is created by the Constitution of the United States, a state or county. Thus each
constitutional officer regards the information necessary to discharge the obligation of the offices mandated by law
as the privileged obligation of that office.
For instance in the State of Maryland the office of the State's Attorney is created by the Constitution of the
State of Maryland. The State's Attorney's Office is funded through the county budget. Each State's Attorney for
each county elected by the voters of that county views their obligation as a unique obligation to the voters who
voted them into office. Hence, they view the information necessary as "their" information. The State's Attorney's
uniqueness is further complicated by the requirements of attorney/client privilege and the adversarial nature of
their business, i.e., presenting evidence in court against an opponent who is trying to defeat their view of the
case. Because of this adversarial/privileged nature of their business, State's Attorneys, rightfully so, will not
permit other interested governmental or private agencies access to their mainframe computer information
databases.
The Public Defender who sits on the other side of the adversarial table is created by a special act of the
legislature. The Public Defender's operations are funded in the State budget which is proposed by the Governor and
adopted by the legislature. The Code of Professional Responsibility adopted by the Court of Appeals requires the
Public Defender, a lawyer licensed by the Court of Appeals, to keep any information acquired from or on behalf of
the client confidential. Thus, the Public Defender's computer databases cannot be shared with any other
court-related organization.
The Sheriff, Police Department, both County and State, the Probation Departments and Juvenile agencies share
similar requirements, although not as compelling. The process of sharing information is further complicated by a
budgetary process provided by the various constitutions and law which requires the county budget to fund some
agencies, the state budget to fund some agencies and both the county and state budgets to share in the funding of
some agencies. This funding dilemma is further complicated by the doctrine of separation of powers which prohibit
the executive or legislative branch of the government from controlling the functions of the judicial branch of the
government through the budgetary process and thus making judicial decisions.
It was in this environment that many "thought" leaders in the court community of the late 1970s and early 1980s
began promoting justice integration of mainframe computer databases. Many were forward-thinking enough to promote
re-engineering of the business processes through partnering ventures with Federal, State and local elected
officials. Many saw promise in the EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) solution being successfully implemented in the
commercial world. This process, which most first observed as the barcode on the grocery item at the checkout
counter, requires the identification of data elements of information which all users agree to maintain in the same
form. Moreover, agreement is reached as to the number of essential elements of information.
However, the EDI concept has been unsuccessful in the Court community largely because of the structural and
constitutional diversity of the many participants. This diversity precludes "one world" hierarchial
structuring.
As computer systems have matured from total dependence on the mainframe to the introduction of local area networks
and personal computers, the court community is beginning to take advantage of the "groupware" application being
developed in the software industry. These systems provide for the sharing of information without the "one world"
hierarchical element.
GROUPWARE
Groupware is defined as any application that promotes communication, collaboration and coordination among teams of
people. There are presently four main organizations who provide a groupware solution: (i) IBM-Lotus Notes 4.5
powered by Domino 4.5; (ii) Microsoft-Exchange; (iii) Novel-Groupwise; and (iv) Netscape-Suitespot.
The concept of groupware is broken down into two areas: Commonware and Workflow. Commonware consists of: (i)
E-mail, (ii) calendering/scheduling; (iii), discussion databases; and (iv) publishing document databases. Workflow
consists of three components: (i) knowledge databases; (ii) tracking application; and (iii) workflow applications.
For purposes of visualization, the following client depicts this breakdown:
The commonware elements are provided by all four groupware providers. However, the workflow element is provided
only by IBM-LotusNotes 4.5 for Domino.
by Judge Arthur M. Monty Ahalt - September 1997
Back to
Top
###
| 
