Click <Edit>, <Replace>, then type a period (.) and hit the spacebar immediately after in the <Find> box. It should read as "<.><spacebar>." (b) Type a period (.) and two @ signs immediately after in the <Replace> box. It should read as "<.><@@>". Hit <Replace All>, then <OK>. (c) Go back to the <Find> box and delete all the contents. Type or copy the period and two @ signs in the <Replace> box here. Now click inside <Replace>. (d) Type a period and two spaces immediately after each other. It should read as "<.><spacebar><spacebar>," then hit <Replace All>. Hit <OK>, then exit. The document will now have two spaces after each period. The only negative is that if you happen to have any names that include middle initials (i.e., James E. Thomas) it will add extra spaces to those as well. So you're going to have to go back and fix these later. You're probably saying "Why we didn't just add the extra spaces from the get go?" Well, sometimes this creates more than just two spaces and doesn't always work. Using the @ signs (or basically any character you want) ensures that you'll have the correct spaces that you request.
Deleting paragraph marks found at the end of each line in a paragraph. This happens a lot with moderate to bad scans and can be a pain to remove. You have to select all the lines in the paragraph (except the last one) and replace the paragraphs with single spaces. (1) Highlight all of the lines in the paragraph, except the last one. Click <Edit>, <Replace>, then hit the <More> button (if it's not already open). (2) Place your cursor inside the <Find> box, then click <Special>, and select <Paragraph Mark>. A "^p" will appear in the box. Click inside the <Replace> box. (3) Insert another <Paragraph Mark>, then press the <spacebar> once. It should read as "<^p><spacebar>." Click <Replace All>. You'll get a message similar to the following: "Word has finished the selection. 3 replacements were made. Do you want to search the remainder of the document?" (4) Hit <No>, then <Close>. Note: If you use paragraph styles, then this would be a good time to apply them.
Replace double hyphens (--) with Em dashes (CC). Even though OCR technology is getting better, they still have a hard time reading em dashes for some reason. (1) Press <Ctrl+Home> to go to the beginning of the document. Click <Edit>, <Replace>, then place your cursor in the <Find> box. (2) Type two hyphens in the box, then click inside <Replace>. (3) You're going to have to type an em dash (-) using the keyboard, because Word will not allow you to access the character from the <Symbols> box. Make sure <Num Lock> is turned on, because you're going to be using the keypad for this, along with the Alt and Ctrl keys. With your cursor still inside the <Replace> box, hold down the <ALT> and <CTRL> keys simultaneously, then press the <minus sign (-)> on the numeric keypad. (4) Click <Replace All>. Hit <OK>, then exit.
Apply widow/orphan control. You want to make sure that the widow/orphan feature is turned on so that you don't have multi-line paragraphs with single lines at the top (widow) or bottom (orphan) of the page. (1) Select the whole document. Press <Ctrl+A> or <Edit>, <Select All>, then click <Format>, <Paragraph> and select the <Line and Page Breaks> tab. (2) Check <Widow/Orphan Control>, then hit <OK>.
Initialize the document font. The main document font should be set before any real clean up is done. Scan documents will sometimes have different font types scattered about that will need to be rectified. (1) Click <Format>, <Font>, and choose the <Font>, <Font Style>, and <Size> that you want. The hit <Default> at the bottom of the menu. Hit <Yes> to the next box that pops up.The document's default font is now set. So whatever text you type or copy here (providing you use <Edit>, <Paste Special>, <Unformatted Text> when copying) from now on will be what you established in the font menu.
Spell Check!Always, always perform a spell check on all of your documents whether they're scans or not. Well, that's it. Happy scanning!
_______________
Marilyn Monrose, the Legal Word Processing "Doctor,"™ temped for 10 years as a legal word processor at many of New York's top law firms. Now a computer trainer, she is also the author of two very successful and simple, step-by-step, hands-on training guides entitled ADVANCED WORD 97 FOR THE LEGAL USER MADE EASY and ADVANCED WORDPERFECT 7 & 8 FOR THE LEGAL USER MADE EASY. Ms. Monrose can be reached at 212-579-9306 or email: Legaltraining@dialalesson.com.
Illinois e-filing: Ready for take-off?
By Peter V. Mierzwa, Copyright 2002
Background
Let's first define e-filing. It is the process of electronically transmitting documents to court instead of manually filing paper documents. Most of us have heard of "e-filing" because it affects almost every area of the legal community. Why should we want this process? Proponents extol successful implementation of e-filing systems as saving time and money, being easy to use, and facilitating increased access to important court documents. Illinois courts have made significant strides to reduce their dockets, but case filings on average continue to rise each year. Here are some of the national numbers driving e-filing initiatives:
90 million cases are filed in the nation's 17,500 courts each year and generate more than 1.5 billion documents. An estimated $11 billion is spent on delivering these documents to the courts and it costs more than $2.5 billion annually to pay for storage. Personnel costs associated with paper filing can account for as much as 90 percent of a court's operating budget.1
These numbers help expose the costly inefficiencies of a paper-based system. Existing paper-based filing processes show no signs of improving. Instead, mountains of paper will continue to grow, requiring additional personnel and storage to manage that growth.2 Also access inefficiencies abound under paper-based systems with lawyers, judges, and courts at the mercy of misplaced, remotely located, concurrently being used, or otherwise unavailable documents. Finally, information is available only when the courts are open; rather than whenever the legal community needs access.
Successful implementation of any e-filing initiative requires the support, education and participation of all stakeholders--Bench, Bar, courts and Legislature. The technology for e-filing systems is available, but understanding, learning, and regular use of these systems is critical to success. The basic steps involved in e-filing documents are not difficult to master:
* Create pleading using word processor;
* Convert document to a PDF3 file;
* Open your internet browser and connect to the appropriate court;
* Submit new case filing, or if an open case, identify the case number;
* Select the appropriate docket entry;
* Indicate the parties;
* Attach the PDF file; and
* Receive an electronic notice of receipt.
These steps mirror the steps required under functioning federal e-filing programs. The average time to file is two to five minutes, (not including document creation). Many attorneys already e-file their taxes with the IRS. E-filing participation will continue to grow as long as careful consideration is given to addressing the needs of all corners of the legal community.
Best in class E-filing systems. While PDF is the format of choice under existing systems, XML (Extensible Markup Language) is viewed as the preferred format of the future. Why XML?4 XML is a markup language for documents containing structured information. Structured information contains both content (words, pictures, etc.) and some indication of what role that content plays. For example, content in a section heading has a different meaning from content in a footnote, which means something different than an image or content in a database table. Almost all documents have multiple components in their structure. As a markup language, XML is a mechanism to identify these components in a document, and ultimately search and manipulate them. Using XML to code documents will provide tremendous efficiencies when court documents are integrated with other governmental agency (and private) electronic documents, because XML can identify the various sources and content of each document.
E-filing early adopters: Federal Judiciary as trailblazer
The federal Judiciary's e-filing system is built around its Case Management/Electronic Case Files [CM/ECF] system. The CM/ECF is designed to replace older electronic docketing and case management systems in more than 200 bankruptcy, district and appellate courts by 2005. The objective of the CM/ECF system is to allow the federal courts to streamline courthouse procedures, reduce staff docketing and document filing time and lessen case participants' photocopying and document shipping costs. The CM/ECF system does not require any additional fees for filing electronically.5
Bankruptcy courts have led the way for federal court e-filing, facilitated by standard procedures and forms with almost every court across the country. The district courts, unfortunately, do not have the same level of standardization, and have lagged behind.
The federal courts in Illinois are about a year away from rolling out the CM/ECF systems. The Northern District Bankruptcy court is scheduled to begin electronic filing in the spring of 2003 with a pilot period beginning in April and the Civil division is preparing for a November 2003 roll-out. Check out the courts' Web sites for further information.6
State courts
The state courts have taken diverse approaches to e-filing with only a handful offering a functioning service.7 Most states have approached e-filing prudently by first adopting a "Policy" and then implementing it through a "Pilot" program. The policies address key issues of hardware and software requirements, public access, mandatory or permissive usage, privacy, security and authentication, and confidentiality to name a few. The National Center of State Courts has posted a number of helpful resources on their site.8 Most of these state court initiatives involve various levels of public and private funding and involvement. E-filing initiatives are not cheap, and private vendor participation and expertise appears to be a significant element of the successful state e-filing programs.
E-filing in Illinois state courts Looking for a few good pilots
Recently, on September 19, 2002, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an Order9 that established the guidelines for electronic access and electronic filing of Circuit Court records in the Illinois courts. The order came as a surprise to most of the legal community, including colleagues I would classify as "techno-lawyers." The Order lays the foundation for e-filing to move forward in Illinois.
History
The order has been four years in the making, beginning in 1998 when Donald P. O'Connell, then Chief Judge of the Cook County Courts, and Aurelia Pucinski, then Cook County Circuit Clerk, both submitted e-filing proposals to the Supreme Court's Rules Committee. That committee held public hearings and submitted its findings to a special Supreme Court Committee headed by Cook County Circuit Judge Stephen A. Schiller. This special Committee issued to the Supreme Court a report, which the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts [AOIC] revised and resubmitted to the court. The Order and its underlying policy become effective January 1, 2003.
The Order and implementation policy.
The policy provides a detailed litany of requirements for electronic access and filing. The policy is permissive in its language, allowing the circuits to decide whether to participate in an e-filing pilot.10 All pilot proposals must have the backing of both the circuit clerk and the chief judge and be submitted for approval to the Supreme Court through the Director of the AOIC. The AOIC also serves in an oversight capacity, reporting non-compliance to the Supreme Court.
The policy's technical requirements set a high bar in terms of costs for most, if not all of the circuit courts, especially given the current state of Illinois governmental budgets, most of which are aiming to reduce or hold-the-line for 2003. Expense issues are augmented by the application requirement that there be a "successful testing phase" of the proposed pilot; thus, putting the developmental cart before the approval horse. Assuming cost issues can be overcome with the aid of federal, public and private resources, many technical and operational issues remain.
Preflight requirements
The major issues pilot applications must address include: scope, data integration, authentication, access safety net, and costs.
Scope. The scope of the policy is broken down into two levels--the courts affected and within those courts the documents applicable. Perhaps the most notable limitation is that the policy does not apply to the Supreme and appellate courts. The application must list all county(ies), division(s), or classes of cases in which the pilot will be used. Any document that will be accepted must be listed. The policy also details which documents may not be filed under a pilot program, such as wills and other testamentary documents.11
Data Integration. Case management systems [CMS] are one of the critical applications that courts use to track, organize, and disseminate court documents. Any application must describe how the pilot will integrate e-filed documents into the court's CMS. The policy goes further to require access to the e-filed documents. The pilot application must detail how the pilot will integrate with paper aspects of the system, and be compatible with any statewide access.
Authentication. The policy correctly identifies authentication of participants and documents as a crucial element to any pilot. E-mail has already become ubiquitous, and yet how many e-mails have you received from anonymous sources? Authentication under the policy requires a process for registering attorneys,12 verifying their good standing, tracking transmissions,13 and incorporating digital signatures. Proposed pilots must also limit access of persons making e-filings to prevent tampering with other filings or records of the court.
Access. Providing a safety net to preserve and disseminate e-filings is another crucial goal of the policy. This includes providing a secure back-up of data and a means to produce microfilm and paper reproductions of e-filings. While these requirements seem counter to the technological advantages of e-filing, they are viewed as essential to preserve a right of public access.
Costs. Any pilot must provide for filing fees and the process for managing those fees according to the policy. These fees appear to be in addition to standard filing fees; thus, the process of e-filing will probably not be free. This should come as no surprise given that the greatest barrier to implementation is costs.
Statewide standards
After the pilot phase, the AOIC is charged with evaluating the pilot programs and recommending to the Supreme Court a standard to follow for the state.
Conclusion
The policy offers a standard blueprint for building an e-filing system, but the legal community will not participate with the mere building of the system. A tremendous educational effort lies ahead on top of the acknowledged issues of funding, privacy, support and cooperation throughout the legal community. Efforts of Illinois Bar Associations are essential to success as they represent the key players who will give flight to the system by filing electronically.
_______________
1. Tom O'Connor, "It's Still Slow Go for E-Filing," Law Technology News, July 2001, at 24.
2. Another effect of space considerations includes restrictions on filing of discovery materials, e.g., deposition manuscripts.
3.pdf stands for Portable Document Format.pdf files are appealing to current e-filing programs because Adobe Acrobat, the software the creates PDF files, ensures that no matter what application you used to produce the original document, all the formatting, fonts, pagination, etc. are preserved exactly as they appeared in the original. The fact that a PDF file maintains its integrity from one platform to another, that it can be made identical from electronic to paper, and that PDF is protectable, verifiable, and searchable, has led numerous courts to adopt PDF as a standard. See also, Adrienne W. Albrecht, "Converting Word files to PDF," Standing Committee on Legal Technology (ISBA, Springfield, IL), Oct. 2002, at 5.
4. For detailed information on XML visit: <http://www.xml.com/>.
5. PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) continues to provide access to all court documents and litigants receive one free copy of their cases. PACER charges seven cents per page downloaded to non-parties.
6. For the Northern District of Illinois: <http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/>. For the Southern District of Illinois: <http:// www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/>. For the Central District of Illinois: <http://www.ilcd.uscourts.gov/>. For Illinois Bankruptcy Courts: <http://www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/>; <http://www.ilsb.uscourts.gov/cmecf.htm>; and <http://www.ilcb.uscourts.gov/>.
7. For a list of states with e-filing initiatives, visit the National Center of State Courts site: <http://www.ncsc.dni.us/NCSC/TIS/TIS99/ELECTR99/Efilinglinks.htm>.
8. Suggested standards for e-filing systems are listed at: <http://www.ncsc.dni.us/ncsc/ctp/htdocs/standards.htm>.
9. In re: Electronic Access and Electronic Filing of Court Records, Illinois Supreme Court, M.R. 18368, (9/19/2002). A PDF of the Order can be obtained by pointing your browser to the Supreme Court's Announcement page for September 19, 2002, or by inputting this link: <http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Announce/2002/Pdf/Ann0919.pdf>.
10. The policy states: "The chief judges and clerks of the circuit court may [emphasis added] permit documents to be filed electronically..."
11. Other limitations include no facsimiles and specific documents excluded by the Chief Judge. The policy states that the "filing of documents by electronic means is limited to AR, CH, D, F, L, LM, MR, MC, SC, and TX case categories."
12. The policy requires the issuance of IDs and passwords.
13. Tracking includes the source, the accuracy of the transmission, the date and time, and the electronic signature.
%20Initial.GIF)