HyperLaw Report
April 11, 1997
I. Transcript of April 3, 1997 hearing -- Judicial
Conference Automation Committee re citations has been placed
on HyperLaw's web site www.hyperlaw.com.
II. An electronic rtf version of the responses of federal
judges to the Administrative Office/Automation Committee is
on the HyperLaw web site.
III. The comments of the public will eventually be placed on
the web site with the help of the American Association of
Legal Publishers and Tax Analysts.
IV. CNN reported this afternoon [Friday] that papers
released by Ickes show that Vance Opperman on June 6, 1996,
just two weeks before DOJ approved the West-Thomson merger,
contributed $156,000 to several state democratic committees
as directed by the White House. CNN said that the manner of
contribution was done so as to hide the fact of the
contribution.
V. Silence of the Lambs and Sharks.
One of the interesting things in reviewing the comments is
the absence of comments by a number of people who will
benefit immeasurably from the proposal.
A. There were no comments from any of the law schools
running the circuit court web sites (when next year,
they proudly announce the availability of official public
domain citations, I hope they will point out they had no
skin in the game.) [Although, Bob Oakley did file a statement
on behalf of AALL].
B. Ditto for a number of publishers like CCH, BNA, Matthew
Bender, Lexis-Michie, VersusLaw, and Lois.
A number of lawyers and law librarians and organizations did
write comprehensive and impressive statements. Some bar
associations did as well. But, reliance on national
associations to pull the weight here risks a repeat of the
merger outcome.
But, I was puzzled by the notable silence from those
mentioned above. Certainly, they knew what was going on.
Some, one hopes are working the back channels, but are they?
The back channels did not work on the merger (unless you're
talking about the Vance Opperman type of back channel - or
maybe that was just a coincidence.)
V. WHAT TO DO
What can you do to express your views concerning the
adoption of the ABA Citation Proposal by the Federal
Judiciary? 1.0
A very similar proposal was considered and rejected by the
Judicial Conference in 1992, after being recommended by the
Automation Committee. A review of the responses to the AO
survey shows that many judges are opposed and that many
judges may not understand the proposal. It is clear that
this proposal must be fairly explained to the federal
judges, or else the 1997 proposal will face a similar
rejection. The full Judicial Conference will consider the
proposal in September, 1997.
The Automation Committee has not indicated that it will
accept further comments -- however, there seems to be
nothing improper about communicating with individual judges
and court clerks. West has always done this.
<b>What will get the attention of the Judges</b>
It is first necessary to grab the attention of the judges.
Many of the judges appear to believe there is no problem
with the present system and have little understanding of the
proposal or its purposes. Following are suggestions as to
grabbing their attention.
<blockquote>
1. Communications from federal litigators in their own
jurisdictions.
2. Communications from professional colleagues from their
prior careers.
3. Communications with federal bar association, nationally
and local (Federal Bar Councils).
4. Communications from other bar associations.
5. Communications from judges in other jurisdictions that
use paragraph or sequence numbering of opinions.
6. Communications from students and educators from non-law
schools, like high schools and community colleges who want
access to court opinions.
6. Editorials in local press.
7. Communications from members of Congress that helped them
become judges or who may help them move from a district to
an appellate court or from a magistrate to a judge.
8. Communications from members of Congressional committees
that are handling matters of importance to the judiciary.
</blockquote>
The last category is very important. The Judiciary is in a
constant battle for its budget. Many in Congress are aware
of the public interest in access to government information.
Many judges seem to feel that the Court has little or no
responsibility to make sure its opinions are available to
the general public and to provide a court citation.
For example, there are pending proposals to increase judges'
compensation.
In the House, there is H.R. 875 by Representatives Henry J.
Hyde (R-IL) and John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), and in the Senate,
S. 394, by Senators Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), Patrick J. Leahy
(D-VT), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Lauch
Faircloth (R-NC).
Another matter of importance to the judiciary if funding for
federal court houses, such as those in Laredo, Texas,
Jacksonville, Florida, Greenville, Tennesses, Savanah,
Georgia, Wheeling, West Virginia, and Denver, Colorado.
One of the problem committees holding up the courthouses is
the House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic
Development.
It is interesting that a courthouse in Texas is being held
up now, especially when one reads the largely hostile
comments by a number of district court judges from Texas.
It may help for the judges to understand that the people
paying for the courthouses where the opinions are being
written would like to get a little back.
It is also interesting that the chair of the Judicial
Conference Committee on Security, Space and Facilities is
Judge John R. Gibson of the Eighth Circuit. Perhaps Judge
Gibson may wish to counsel the clerk of his court who
appears to be leading the charge against this proposal and
who wrote in his comments to the Automation Committee:
<blockquote>
Our experience since we first addressed
this issue has confirmed our belief that an
alternative citation system based on
sequential opinion number is not needed in
the federal courts. Neither attorneys
practicing in our courts nor judges
researching and writing opinions have
expressed the view that the current system of
citation based on case number, date of
issuance and court hinders their use or
citation of federal court opinions. Likewise,
no judge or attorney has ever expressed to
any of us any desire to adopt a citation
system such as the one proposed in the ABA
resolution. In our opinion, the proposal to
create a citation system based on sequential
opinion numbers is a solution in search of a
problem.
</blockquote>
<a href="8thclk.htm">Letter dated March 14, 1997 from
Michael E. Gans, Clerk of the Court, United States Court of
Appeals, For the Eighth Circuit, Appellate Court Clerk's
Advisory Committee,</a>
Watch this web site and this page
http:\\www.hyperlaw.com\whattodo.htm for further
information. This page will be updated as further
information is obtained.
In general it would be appropriate to send copies of letters
to at least one member of congress, at least one judge on
the Judicial Conference, a member of the press, and copied
for placement on internet WEB sites.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Alan D. Sugarman Federal Appeals on Disc tm CD-ROM ::
:: President Opinions of US Courts of Appeals ::
:: 1993 to Date - All Circuits ::
:: HyperLaw, Inc. Registered Trademark ::
:: P.O. Box 1176 DO NOT SHORT CIRCUIT YOUR CLIENTS ::
:: New York, NY 10023 ::
:: sugarman@hyperlaw.com 212-787-2812 212-496-4138(fax) ::
:: ::
:: http://www.hyperlaw.com ::
:: ::
:: /// /// /// [R] ::
:: /// /// /// ::
:: /// /// /// ::
:: //////////////// /// ::
:: //////////////// /// ::
:: /// /// /// ::
:: /// /// /////////// ::
:: /// /// /////////// ::
:: ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:33 PST