WASHINGTON STATE ACCESS TO JUSTICE TECHNOLOGY PRINCIPLES: A PERSPECTIVE FOR JUSTICE SYSTEM PROFESSIONALS, THE

Justice System Journal, 2006 by Zorza, Richard, Horowitz, Donald J

In a multiple-approval process, this draft of the Principles was approved first by the full ATJTBoR Committee, next by the Access to Justice Board, and then by the Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association and many other organizations. Discussions during these approvals required many clarifications and minor adjustments to the Principles.

In autumn 2004, in a joint submission by the Access to Justice Board and two key allies, the State Administrative Office of the Courts and the Washington State Bar Association, the Access to Justice Technology Principles were submitted to the Washington State Supreme Court with a proposed court order stating the premises of the court action and adopting the Principles. After due consideration, the court signed the order and adopted the Principles on December 3, 2004.

Anxieties and Concerns Raised by the Proposal for Quiding Principles. When the Access to Justice Technology Principles process began, it engendered anxieties among many segments of the justice system. Anxieties are natural in any new process, particularly when one is dealing with unknown complexities. Recognizing this from the beginning allowed the committee and those managing the process to try and avoid or alleviate such concerns. We now examine the most important concerns.

Loss of administrative flexibility: Some feared that the adoption of authoritative principles would reduce administrative flexibility. In this regard, justice system agencies reported that they needed flexibility in the use of technology and could not function well with what could become an additional layer of constraint.

In response, the Principles themselves were carefully crafted to minimize any substantive burden on administering agencies; they are drafted specifically to avoid the creation of new causes of action or new third-party legal rights, and they rely heavily on the desire to do the right thing and on the initiative and responsibility of administering agencies. As a result, they have achieved almost unanimous support from Washington State agencies.

Cost and unfunded mandates: A more specific fear was that the Principles would result in massive costs, which would have to be shouldered by the courts and other agencies. There is no question that technology can be expensive, and often good technology is more expensive than bad, at least in the short term. The Principles avoided conflict over this point by not mandating the adoption of certain technology.

Impossible tasks: A similar fear was that the Principles would result in impossible tasks being required of agencies. Would the Principles, for example, require a new, highly expensive public-access network? The language of general principles rather than mandates made such a conclusion far less likely.

Just outcomes versus process orientation: A very different concern throughout was the worry by some that the Principles had adopted a substantive-justice approach-that they were "result oriented" in the sense that they focused the legal system on results rather than processes. To those concerned about this orientation, any reference in the Principles to "just results" would be inconsistent with the functioning of the legal system. The wording of the Principles was changed to emphasize that "just results" were themselves produced by fair and informed processes, mitigating this concern.