What is It? The transmission envelope provides the format and content of information that must accompany a document that is being submitted to a court with a filing or subsequent case action, so that a court can associate it with case information in its case management and document management systems.

Recommendation. Courts will accept transmissions structured in compliance with the Legal XML Court Filing Version 1 specification.

Implementation. Supreme Court rule and JISC standard. Compliance is required immediately.

Commentary. The Court Filing standard applies only to the transmission envelope. This standard excludes custom court policies, which are dealt with in Standard #9.

What is It? Everyone is familiar with different kinds of file formats, such as the ones used by Microsoft Word or WordPerfect. Those are word processing file formats. In addition, there are image file formats, such as TIFF, GIF and JPEG. Finally, there are Internet file "formats" (technically, they are World Wide Web protocols) like HTML and XML.

Recommendation. Acceptable formats include PDF, TIFF and XML.

Implementation. Supreme Court rule and JISC standard. Compliance is required immediately.

Commentary. XML submissions must be compliant with Legal XML Court Document Version 1, which applies only to the documents previously submitted as blobs. The standard will specify if a DTD or schema is used. Once Version 1 is published, the XML format is recommended but not required. This is primarily because it is an unfunded mandate. Note that the required file formats are for documents coming from the EFSP to the EFM. The EFSP is free to accept documents in any format it wishes, including popular word processing formats.

What is It? There is much confusion surrounding electronic signatures and digital signatures. I can provide a quick tutorial if the work group wants it. An entire background paper could be written on the subject. The bottom line for most courts is that digital signatures seem to be overkill (a higher bar than the current hard copy process) for most document submissions to the court. Most states and the federal courts are settling for ID's and passwords for user authentication.

Recommendation. The courts will rely upon the EFSP component to authenticate the identity of each customer. The EFM component will not accept encrypted documents in final form from the EFSP or use digital signatures to authenticate a filer's identity.

Implementation. Supreme Court rule. Compliance is required immediately.

Commentary. Note that the prohibition on digital signatures is only for incoming documents from the EFSP to the EFM. The EFSP is free to require a digital signature from its customers. The court is free to use digital signatures on judicial orders or copies of documents sent to customers.

What is It? This is the technical standard that tells the EFM middleware how to talk to the back-end case management system (CMS) and document management system (DMS). It should be a standard that is used by all courts, no matter what software they are using for their EFM, CMS, or DMS. It describes what data will be exchanged and how it will be exchanged.

Recommendation. To file cases electronically, a court will have to comply with this standard Application Processing Interface (API). The AOC will write the technical specification and certify that candidate EFM's and CMS's comply (see #11 below).

Implementation. BJA policy and AOC specification. Compliance is required one year after AOC publishes the standard.

Commentary. Although AOC does not maintain a document management system for the trial courts, the court system benefits from AOC establishing a standard for the interface between the EFM and the DMS. Note that OXCI is an attempt to provide this standard API for free to all courts. This standard will reference the Legal XML Court Policy (see #9), Query/Response (see #5), and CMS Data Configuration standards.

What is It? Case participants and the public want more than the ability to file cases and documents online. They also want to query the court for information about cases. In the short-run, the JIS Committee will meet this need with a combination of services, ranging from JIS-Link (soon on the web) to online calendar querying to an online enterprise data warehouse. When the Legal XML standard matures in this area, we will probably want to move this functionality to the electronic filing applications for case participants only.

Recommendation. EFSP, EFM and CMS vendors must comply with the Legal XML Query/Response standard (or an equivalent state standard) when it is written. In the interim, AOC may coordinate and evaluate solutions implemented in pilot projects. The AOC will certify that candidate applications comply (see #11 below).

Implementation. Supreme Court rule, BJA policy, and AOC specification. Compliance is required one year after the Legal XML Query/Response standard is published.

Commentary. The AOC should not establish an interim standard, since that would largely duplicate the work of the Legal XML organization and produce a suboptimal solution. This standard applies only to query/response functionality.

What is It? Courts need to communicate back to case participants with notices, signed judicial orders, etc. They need some way of doing this that is more robust than email messages for reasons well stated in the California standards document.

Recommendation. The EFM-to-CMS API will include methods for a CMS to present a message and/or documents to an EFM. EFM and CMS vendors must comply with the Legal XML Query/Response standard when it is written. In the interim, the AOC may coordinate and evaluate solutions implemented in pilot projects. The AOC will certify that candidate applications comply with the Legal XML standard, once it is established (see #11 below). Acceptable document file formats include TIFF, PDF and XML.

Implementation. BJA policy and AOC specification. Compliance is required one year after the Legal XML Query/Response standard is published.

Commentary. The AOC should not establish an interim standard, since that would largely duplicate the work of the Legal XML organization and produce a suboptimal solution. The file formats should be symmetrical to those permitted for filing documents. Alternatively, the standard might exclude TIFF and require only PDF or XML.

What is It? If a commercial EFSP is used by a case participant, the easiest approach is for the court to let the vendor directly control the payment mechanism with the case participant. Then, the court need concern itself only with payments by the EFSP, who is in effect a financial intermediary. If a court acts as its own EFSP, then it must establish the direct payment methods.

Recommendation. Each commercial EFSP will guarantee payment as appropriate to the court and make such payments using EFT. Commercial EFSPs will also provide reconciliation reports for all transactions in an electronic format. Commercial EFSPs must support credit and debit card payments and EFT payments. The AOC will write the technical specification for the reconciliation reports.

Implementation. Supreme Court rule, AOC specification. Compliance with all aspects of the standard is required to accept payments electronically.

Commentary. For pilot projects, courts may suggest an initial version of the reconciliation report that meets minimal auditing and case management requirements. We may want to go further and directly specify an API for transactions with JRS and JASS. Since that functionality is only partly covered by the Court Filing standard, some additional functionality may need specification in the Court Policy standard.

What is It? Since confidential information is often submitted as part of a court filing or document submission, it is important that transmissions between an EFSP and an EFM be secure.

Recommendation. EFSP-to-EFM transactions shall be performed using https and SSL. The broad requirement for security should be included in a Supreme Court rule on electronic filing. The AOC should establish and update the technical specification as Internet standards evolve.

Implementation. Supreme Court rule and JISC standard. Compliance is mandatory for any electronic filing.

Commentary. Major browsers and servers already support https and SSL. Some additional expense is required to maintain an https server. Several issues related to security should be considered in the context of Compliance and Certification (#11). In particular, contracts with commercial EFSPs should specify confidentiality and privacy constraints on data access. Such contracts should also include clauses preventing collection and reuse of user data for unrelated commercial purposes. Finally, questions were voiced about how filers would choose among multiple vendors. Although the explicit California standard registering certified vendors with the AOC has been excluded, the group felt that the state court website would need to provide links for all certified commercial vendors and courts acting as their own EFSPs.

What is It? This is a method for specifying court-unique requirements for the EFSP component, whether provided by a commercial vendor or by the court itself. Legal XML is working on a national specification for these optional "policies."

Recommendation. Courts will express their policies using the Legal XML Court Policy XML specification. AOC will establish the specification for JIS functionality beyond the basic Legal XML standard.

Implementation. BJA policy and JISC standard and AOC specification. Compliance is required one year after the Legal XML Court Policy standard is published.

Commentary. There are two concerns here. The first is timing. No target date for completing this standard has been officially set and no initial draft has been published for comment. Second, the scope of the standard appears to be in flux as complementary decisions are made about the EFM-CMS API and the related CMS Data Configuration standard, which also has no date established for a first draft.

What is It? The number of EFM's for each CMS should be limited. The logic of these collective standards points toward a single EFM per CMS. Symmetry requires that the EFM also comply with standards for the Transmission Envelope and the Communication Protocol.

Recommendation. Courts will implement a single EFM application interfaced to each CMS enabled for electronic filing. The EFM software will be compliant with specifications for Transmission Envelope and Communication Protocols.

Implementation. Supreme Court rule and JISC standard. Compliance is required immediately.

Commentary. Although the California standards do not say so, it seems like the EFM must also comply with the Query/Response, Court Policy and CMS Data Configuration standards.

What is It? In order to ensure that EFSP, EFM and CMS applications actually interoperate correctly, such applications should be tested to verify compliance with the various Legal XML specifications. To the extent that Washington includes specific requirements beyond the generic Legal XML specification, an additional certification process will be needed.

Recommendation. Until the Legal XML certification process (or an equivalent state standard) is operational, AOC will coordinate and evaluate interim specifications for pilot projects. Once established, the Legal XML certification process shall be used. An AOC certification process shall still be used for state-specific functionality, if any, beyond the Legal XML specification.

Implementation. Supreme Court rule, JISC standard, AOC certification. Compliance is required one year after the Legal XML Court Policy standard is published. If a state-specific standard is also required, compliance is required one year after AOC publishes the specification.

Commentary. Vendors will want to reduce or eliminate state-specific functionality. AOC will want to minimize its role as a certification body.

What is It? Performing electronic noticing and service are logical extensions of electronic filing. Ideally, these actions would flow through the standard e-filing architecture, based on the Legal XML Query/Response standard. A court rule enables courts to experiment with email in the interim.

Recommendation. Courts can send notice to parties electronically, but they are not required to do so. If they do, it is mandatory that they use the Legal XML standard once it is established.

Implementation. Supreme Court rule. Compliance is optional for email notice and service. Compliance is mandatory one year after the relevant parts of the Legal XML Query/Response standard are published if a court opts to notice electronically.

Commentary. Although this is not required in the California standard, there are significant business benefits for the courts filers if a mandatory standard can be based on part of the Legal XML Query/Response standard.

Some Definitions

API - Application Program Interface. A formal specification describing how one program can "talk" to another program.

CMS - Case Management System. An application like SCOMIS.

DMS - Document Management System. An application like the King County Superior imaging system, although it would use an XML-based transmission envelope for documents in this system.

DTD - Document Type Definition. Describes the format for a document created using XML.

EFM - Electronic Filing Manager. An application that accepts an XML file from the EFSP application and processes it, passing data to the CMS and DMS, and returning any necessary XML-formatted information to the EFSP application.

EFSP - Electronic Filing Service Providers. They provide an application for filers to submit documents to courts, electronically forward those filings to courts, and direct responses from courts back to the respective filers.

HTTPS - HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure. A secure version of the Internet protocol for transmitting information on the World Wide Web. It allows Implementation of SSL in servers and browsers, which ensures that information is protected from prying eyes.

PDF - Portable Document Format. An open but proprietary standard for Internet documents from Adobe. It preserves the original format of the document, but is text-searchable.

SSL - Secure Sockets Layer. It works together with https to provide encrypted and digitally signed transactions over the Internet.

TIFF - Tag Image File Format. A standard file format for exchanging graphical images.

XML - Extensible Markup Language. An Internet protocol for giving meaning to data and document subsections. It is similar in design to HTML, but supports intelligent data exchanges.