SUPERVISION OF CENTER BY AUTONOMOUS BOARD OF FIVE JUDGES

The Center operates under the supervision of an autonomous board of five judges and is presided over by the Chief Justice.

The Board was specifically authorized to study and determine ways in which automatic data processing and system procedures may be applied to the administration of the affairs of the courts. A small staff of specialists will initiate and recommend needful projects for the consideration of the Board, but much of the actual work will be conducted under contract with governmental and private agencies who are proficient in particular projects.

COMPUTERIZATION: UNDETERMINED ECONOMIC AND EFFICIENT

UTILIZATION

The articulated thinking of the sponsors of the legislation was that automatic data processing and systems procedures could be as helpful in the administration of justice as they are presently revolutionizing medical care. According to a reliable medical periodical:

The U.S. Public Health Service is so confident of the importance of medical computers that it has authorized some $10 million a year for research into their uses.

We realize that computerization cannot replace the family doctor, nor the judgment of the judge. Yet we know that computers are dramatically changing the course of modern medicine and may very well change the whole course of court administration.

However, a word of caution is appropriate here. Our preliminary investigations lead us to conclude that automatic data processing is not the panacea for all judicial ills. We must determine in what way and to what extent computers can be most economically and efficiently used to improve the overall operation of the Federal judicial system.

MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEMS SURVEY CONTRACT

It was indeed significant that one of the Center's first projects was to contract with North American Rockwell Information System for a management and systems survey of five of the courts of appeals and five of the busiest district courts. This overview, completed in October of last year, identified and analyzed areas where procedural change could bring about improvements in court management and administration, and to give the courts tools in the form of preliminary systems analyses which could be used in a continuing development program.

The emphasis was on court management and organization and is designed to make the court administration more efficient, thus more economical-in sum, to reduce the embarrassing court congestion. The full extent to which this survey will be used in the courts is still being determined by close analysis, appraisal, and planning. However, the Center has initiated some projects and revised others as a result of the recommendations and confirmations of this report.

DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVED COURT ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM

For example, the development of an improved court administration system was begun under contract to the National Archives and Records Service. The preliminary design phase has now been completed and test procedures are being developed which will be implemented in July in the northern district of California. In addition, several of the projects which we are planning for 1971 were recommended by the survey report.

COMPUTER FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CLERK'S OFFICE

Another one of the first projects was a computer feasibility study of the clerk's office in one of the most active districts in the Federal system, which resulted in the development of techniques for generating a number of civil case status, disposition, and monitoring reports. This study developed the need for even more comprehensive and intensive research in cooperation with the Administrative Office and the Department of Justice.

MEMORANDUM OF JUDGE ALVIN RUBIN, U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

If I may digress here, that project is in the eastern district of Louisiana. It has been going on for about a year.

Senator ELLENDER. Is that the busiest?

Judge MURRAH. It is one of the busiest.

I would like to read from a memorandum of Judge Alvin Rubin, who we think is one of the finest judges in the system. This is what he said about what the project has done so far. This is a memorandum he wrote to his clerk and sent to me in response to a memorandum from the clerk:

THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CASES TO EXPEDITE HANDLING:

That is the heading.

This might include a classification of cases immediately upon filing by subject matter. The computer might be programmed to allot the case automatically to divisions, instead of alloting only at random among the cases. Cases might be classified by their nature, and each type of case could readily be allotted.

Thus, for example, a case classified as "patent" might be subject to separate allotment than a case classified as "Jones Act"-in other words, by the weight. Thus, all patent cases would be subject to allotment among seven judges, so the Judge would not by accident draw three patent cases in a row.

In like manner, the Jones Act cases would be separately allotted, and no judge would draw three of these in a row. Something of this sort is now being done in Chicago, and I think it has excellent features to prevent one judge from being burdened with too many hard cases.

Then he goes on. I will be glad to leave this with you.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It may be received and inserted in the record. (The memorandum follows:)

RE:

REPORT ON OBJECTIVES OF THE LOUISIANA EASTERN DISTRICT
COMPUTER SYSTEM FILING PROJECT

The following thoughts occurred to me after reading the report that you left with me.

1. A "partial" study will really be much less effective than a full study. Obviously, tabulations with respect to the total district, total caseload of attorneys, and the like, cannot be made. Nor can there be an intelligent evaluation of the effect of different assignment methods, different pre trial methods and the like. Nevertheless, some excellent results may be achieved even if only three judges are used in the study. However, to this end, I would suggest that careful attention be given to the judges who are selected. It would not be effective to select only judges whose dockets are relatively current, or, conversely, only judges whose dockets are relatively slow. Ky own though would be that the Chief Judge ought to determine the judges whose dockets will be put on the computer with something like the following in mind:

One of the judges would be selected from among the group composed of Cassibry, Mitchell, and me. These are the judges whose dockets are the most nearly current. As among these three, some thought should be given to selecting a judge who would be apt to attempt to use the study most imaginatively in an effort to exploit its full potential. The second judge should be selected from the "intermediate" group. This might be, for example, Judge Boyle or Judge Comiskey. I would suggest that the third judge to be included would be Judge Heebe whose docket, I suspect, contains the greatest number of cases at the present time. (Of course, these suggestions are not intended to reflect favorably or unfavorably upon any of the judges in the study. It is well known that Judge Heebe has had exceedingly "bad luck" on the case allotment. However, one of the possibilities in the computer study would be to attempt to find some way of more equitably allotting cases to avoid hardship on any one judge.)

2.

I don't know why the implementation period is suggested as being "at least one year". It would seem to me that, if work has reached the stage that I have been told it has, a well organized effort could complete the study of three judges' dockets in six months.

3. For reasons I have already set forth, I don't agree with your observation on page 2 that involving all the judges would be a "grave mistake". I think it would be a distinct advantage. However, if we are forced to restrict the study for financial reasons, then we must.

4. In addition to the "goals" set by you, the following potential uses of the system occur to me:

a. The systematic review of cases to expedite handling. This might include a classification of cases immediately upon filing by subject matt er. The computer might be programmed to allot the case automatically to divisions. Instead of allotting only at random among the cases, cases might be classified by their nature and each type of case could readily be allotted. Thus, for example, a case classified as "patent" might be subject to separate allotment than a case classified as "Jones Act." Thus all patent cases would be subject to

allotment among the seven judges so that no judge would, by accident, draw three patent cases in a row. In like manner, the Jones Act cases would be separately allotted, and no judge would draw three of these in a row. Something of this sort is now being done in Chicago, and I think it has excellent features to prevent one judge from being burdened with too many hard cases.

b. Systematic search of cases a fixed period after filing to determine whether service has been made. (If not, the computer could be programmed to send a notice.)

c. Systematic review of cases a fixed period after service to determine if responsive pleadings have been filed. (If not, then the computer will be programmed to send an appropriate notice.)

d. Review of cases automatically upon filing or 60 days thereafter to see if they are likely to present jurisdictional amount problems. The computer could be programmed to give a report to each judge monthly with some sort of symbol opposite, let's say, personal injury cases with the ad damnum is less than $50,000 so that the judge could take a personal look at the record and see if inquiry should be made into jurisdictional amount.

e. Programmed service resulting in sending a questionnaire to counsel after the answer is filed, to attempt to determine the likely amount of time required to prepare the case for trial and the likely length of the trial. This will assist the judge in looking forward to his future workload.

f. You have indicated that one use of the system would be to report cases in which there had been inaction for a stated period of time. This will not eliminate a call docket, but it will eliminate the mechanical work involved in preparing

one.

g. Providing an extra service to members of the bar by enabling any lawyer (perhaps for a modest fee) to secure a list of those cases which he or his firm has pending.

h. Use of the machine to indicate cases that have been passed for some reason and follow up on them with a computer notice. (For example, cases in which an attorney has requested that a trial date or a conference date be passed because of impending settlement could be followed up in 30 days if no dismissal is filed.)

1. Of course a host of useful projects can be designed for criminal cases.

We are apt to learn much more about how we can use the computer when the project chief is appointed. But I think we need to be really imaginative and not simply to deal with the computer as a tabulator.

As soon as the new project manager is chose, I will be glad to discuss this matter further with you and him, and Judge West, if Judge West wishes me to do so.

Sincerely,

Alvin B. Rubin

PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF ANNUAL COST OF OPERATION OF JURY SYSTEM

Judge MURRAH. The operation of our jury system is costing us approximately $14 million per year, and knowledgeable people predict that this amount could be significantly reduced by more efficient utilization of jurors without impairing the efficiency of the courts.

It should be noted that our jurors now draw $20 a day instead of $10, and we are having a case explosion. And our jury costs have increased appreciably within the last few years.

Westinghouse offered to conduct a preliminary survey of six of the busiest courts in the system without cost. This preliminary survey led to the conclusion that:

The courts could reduce the number of jurors called to save money and alleviate the clerical workload, and make jury service more meaningful and worthwhile for those jurors called.

Westinghouse reported that the probability of "increased efficiency and economy" was sufficiently high to justify an in-depth study of predicting juror requirements on both a long-range and day-to-day basis.

This report was submitted within the past 2 weeks, and the Center plans to follow through on these recommendations.

FEASIBILITY TEST

Senator ELLENDER. What prompted Westinghouse to do this free of charge?

Judge MURRAH. They are in that business.

Senator ELLENDER. In the hope you would buy one of theirs?

Judge MURRAH. We have moved just as cautiously as we can. We want to find out whether or not what was spent would be justified. Not all computer projects are feasible. I suppose you would call this a feasibility test.

If we decide to pursue the matter further, of course, they would probably bid on it for the additional work to be done. But they would only be one.

Justice Clark twisted a lot of arms in that regard. He got a number of surveys by different organizations.

Senator ELLENDER. This survey has been completed?
Judge MURRAH. Yes, it has.

Senator ELLENDER. At what cost to the Government?

Judge MURRAH. None whatsoever. Westinghouse volunteeed to do it without cost.

MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEMS SURVEY CONTRACT WITH NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL INFORMATION SYSTEMS: COST

Senator ELLENDER. Didn't you have one first completed?

Judge MURRAH. The Rockwell

Senator ELLENDER. How much did that one cost?

Judge MURRAH. $76,000. That was finished in 1969.

UTILIZATION OF STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

Senator ELLENDER. Have you put any of the recommendations into up to this moment?

effect