Log in
Too much information?
Posted: July 30, 2010
By Danielle Walker
While advancements in court technology have made some legal processes more convenient for the public, those preparing for litigation often face greater challenges as they head to court.
In the days before the worldwide web, maintaining a client's privacy was much easier than it is today.
Since 1993, the Center for Legal and Court Technology in Williamsburg has researched the impact of technological advances in courts, and even pushed them along. The center was started by Williamsburg's National Center for State Courts and the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at William and Mary and has since become a global leader in technological courtroom research.
Fred Lederer, the director of CLCT, spoke about what these changes may mean for the business community.
"Once upon a time, there was practical obscurity," Lederer said, referring to the pre-Web era when public court records were commonly accessed at the courthouse. "Now, increasingly, all this type of information is available on the Web.
If you're a businessperson, your sales could be affected, he said, now that compromising information may be only a click away.
CLCT does experimental cases called laboratory trials to test the latest courtroom technology such as voice recognition, electronic recording and language-interpretation technology.
The mock trials are done with governmental agencies, like the Department of Justice, which will be involved with CLCT's October laboratory trial - an attempted child slavery case.
Through these experimental trials, CLCT works to understand how complicated computer information and courtroom technology can be better used and understood in courts. The non-profit research and education center supports legal communities throughout the United States and Canada.
The level of technology used in a courtroom depends on where the court is; for instance, Virginia tends to have more traditional state courts. Federal courts do not have the same degree of openness as state courts, although they may permit litigants involved in a case to watch or listen to proceedings live.
One commonplace advancement involves evidence technology. By way of a document camera, paragraphs and pertinent information on paper documents can be blown up for the entire courtroom to view. Also, two-way video-conferencing has been in greater use in the court system.
Rebecca Hulse, a professor and assistant director of technology and privacy at CLCT, said "practical obscurity is dead" and individuals in the business community need to be aware of what faces them upon going to court.
"One of the major areas that we focus on is the impact of the rise of computers, on the accessibility of court records," said Hulse.
She said that while lawyers have become more savvy about what information they need to include for court record, and what personal information can be left out, "The fear among the court community is that individuals will be less interested in using courts to settle disputes. So it's really a difficult balance."
Some points of focus in her curriculum include privacy within social networking, national security and the framework of privacy laws.
Her main advice for individuals in the business community is to be careful when selecting an attorney.
"A businessperson should sit down and discuss carefully with the attorney what should be included, and what should be left out. Be really hard-nosed. Make sure that the attorney understands the risk," Hulse said.
Internet privacy concerns also extend beyond the courtroom for many in the business community. Kevin Zywna, a certified financial planner with Bunting Capital Management, a Virginia Beach-based financial advisory company, explained how public access via the web plays into his day-to-day work.
"From a legal aspect we are protecting our client's information," said Zywna. "And we, in the financial services industry, have a lot of our personal information available for public scrutiny."
Zywna said his company is regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which keeps a record of violations as well as information like employment history and contact information, on its website, www.sec.gov/. He said that while this information is, in many cases, an understandable provision, the level of accessibility to the public could be a bit unsettling.
"From a regulatory standpoint, we were always required to provide information about ourselves and our firm, to communicate with the public how we're structured and how we work," Zywna said.
"It's just now, it's so much easier to look up that [information]. I can find out certain operational aspects of your business, how many clients you serve, and your client base - all from the comfort of my desk, here at work."
