What is clear from our review of court activity around the country is that electronic public access to court records, although not as high profile a subject as e-filing, is a concept whose time has come. In the end, the method used to deliver service depends on what the customers want, and isn’t necessarily an either/or choice between technologies. When deciding what to use, courts need to be in touch with their communities because each will have different needs. Each court must decide on what public records are to be provided electronically, and who will pay for the “enhanced” technology.

According to a study done by the National Center for State Courts and released at the National Conference on Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System in May of 1999, most Americans consider the performance of our courts to be “average.” This is not because of a lack of confidence in the professionalism and integrity of either judges or court personnel, but primarily because of the issues of TIMELINESS and ACCESS. Eighty percent (80%) of the people surveyed agreed that courts don’t handle cases in a “...timely manner...” and 44% felt that courts were “...out of touch...” with the citizens in their community. [1]

Despite this perceived lack of timeliness, however, courts across the country are facing reduced budgets and staffs but increased caseloads. The latter comes despite FBI and local statistics showing a decrease in crime. At the Federal level, there has been such a substantial increase in cases that even Chief Justice Rehnquist has protested the lack of Congressional funding for adequate staffing. At the state and local levels, some experts have stated that the reduced crime rate actually allows police to devote more energy to investigating, and thus prosecuting, crimes, thereby leading to an increase in caseloads.

The overall result, however, has been for courts to rely more and more on technology to make them more efficient. A general trend noted in the government industry is to provide more detailed information to the general public in real-time fashion, particularly through the Internet. First generation government web sites provided basic information about the particular court, such as location, hours or operation, directions and FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions). The second and third generation web sites now provide user query interfaces to search and sort information directly from the court’s database. This user-friendly access, coupled with more user awareness, keeps the public at their own computer and less time on the phone or at the government agency office.

Electronic public access is an alternative method of delivering court services to the public without using staff resources. It can provide information faster and at a lower cost than can a court employee and makes the information available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and can be accessed from a computer system anywhere in the world. 

On the other hand, with a wider range of information available to the public through remote access, more of the public is accessing this information. With less staff and funding to provide the resources to meet this demand, more and more courts are looking for external sources of assistance. For court systems to provide electronic public access to court records, there are basically three alternatives:

• Use a direct dial-up connection. This will require end users to utilize a terminal emulation software program. 

• Use a Web browser.  This will require either a custom program to interface with older, legacy court database systems or the purchase of a new Web-enabled case management system. Either solution may be costly.

• Use a 3rd party provider. The current alternatives are discussed in the main body of this report, but the majority emphasize access to Federal courts. If your court is state or local, CourtLink is currently the only reasonable choice for this development.

The following chart illustrates the current choices for 3rd party assistance in developing one of these models. As can be seen, the most resources exist at the Federal level while for state and local courts, their only available partner for providing electronic access to court records, with a few isolated exceptions, is CourtLink. 
 

	Federal District Court	Bankruptcy Court	Circuit Court of Appeals	State Court	Local Court
PACER	Y	Y	Y
CaseStream	Y
CourtExpress	Y	Y	Y
CourtLink	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y

Courts today are faced with ever mounting pressures to produce more efficient results with less resources. As noted by The Honorable Arthur M. Monty Ahalt, recently retired from the bench of Prince George’s County, Maryland:

 “We find ourselves confronted with the information age. Change is being thrust onto almost every facet of life. It is like a whirlwind, which will not let up and move on. Simultaneously, judicial and bar leaders are coming to grips with the genuine and real perception that citizens do not have trust in nor confidence in the courts or the legal profession. These two dynamics – the information age and public trust and confidence – will compel the reshaping and indeed the remaking of the courts of America.”
(From Remaking the Courts of America; The Virtual Courthouse, OCT 1999; Issue 4.7)