Technology has radically changed the practice of law in the last 15 years. Harnessing recent technological advances has enabled me, a sole practitioner, to effectively compete against much larger firms. Email, internet, laptops, online databases, cell phones, intelligent voicemail, PDA's, wireless networks and numerous other advances play a constant and indispensable role in my legal practice (and my life). Without all of this technology, I could not survive as a solo practitioner. The efficiency and productivity gains I have personally experienced by communicating primarily by email, for example, is mind boggling.
Unfortunately, the County Courts at Law, particularly Court Number Four, have been slow to jump on the technology band wagon. Any one who practices in these courts can attest that technology has not radically changed the way the courthouse operates. Court business is conducted pretty much the same way it was 15 years ago.
County Court at Law Number Four has a website:
http://www.dallascourts.com/cocivil/ccl4bio.htm. It contains a grainy picture of the judge, a few telephone numbers, and a short bio of the judge. It purports to have the judge’s entry in the Dallas County Bench Book, but when that link is followed we are informed that this information was removed at the direction of the holders of the copyright to the Dallas County Bench Book. As far as I have been able to discover, this site is the extent of County Court at Law Number Four’s presence on the internet. (Judge Woody has his own website,
www.judgewoody.com, but uses this site for campaign purposes, rather than court business.)
The County Court at Law Number Four website is striking in what it does not provide: no email addresses, no court policies, no local rules, no calendar information, no forms, no useful information other than the phone numbers. I believe that Court Number Four is missing a huge opportunity to be more efficient and productive.
To see how judges can use the internet to increase the productivity and efficiency of the court one need only look at the local judges who have harnessed this technology. Here are some examples:
- The 14th District Court here in Dallas has a great website: http://www.judgemarymurphy.com/. Among other information, the site provides email addresses, court policies, form orders, and the court’s trial and motion docket for the next week.
- The judges in Collin County have a wonderful website: http://www.texasjudge.com/. This site provides a wealth of information and at least one court, the 219th District Court, allows lawyers to schedule hearings directly from the website. Other innovations include CourtCall, in which, if both parties agree, some hearings can be conducted by telephone, thereby reducing litigation costs, and FaxBack, in which attorneys can receive quick clarification on previous rulings form the Court.
- The Court Coordinator of the 162nd District Court in Dallas requires attorneys to use email to announce whether they are ready for trial for cases set on the next week’s docket (a Thursday ritual in the District Courts). Rather than spending the entire day fielding calls and returning voicemails (as other coordinators do), using email dramatically frees up the coordinator’s time for more productive matters not to mention providing an easy way of informing the attorneys of their position on the docket (by simply hitting the reply button) and a written record of the announcement.
Email is a communication medium incredibly underutilized by courts. Email is inexpensive, instantaneous, and secure (if proper measures are used). Email makes replying to a message or inquiry very simple and provides, if needed, confirmation of receipt. Courts should use email to the fullest extent possible and, to the extent that email replace notices sent by U.S. Mail, will result in substantial cost savings.
Website and email represent just two low cost or no cost tools that County Court at Law Number Four can use to productively manage the court’s docket. There are many others. What is needed is a judge familiar and comfortable with these tools; a judge willing to experiment with technology and try new things to make the court more efficient; and a judge committed to bring the court into the 21st Century.
