Letter of Transmittal3
Executive Summary.4
Introduction..5
The Issues.5
The Solution.7
Conclusion9
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Pace County Courthouse Executive Committee
1010 First, Avenue
Pace City, CA, 12346
Dear Judge Pace,
As per your request dated December 1, 2015, please find attached the analysis and report of “bring your own device” (BYOD) practices and what options the courthouse has for addressing BYOD. As you will find, BYOD practices are a common aspect of the modern legal industry that is finding growing support in courthouse across the country. There are a number of benefits in allowing BYOD for courthouse staff and visitors, especially the attorneys.
Since we understand that the Executive Committee is seriously considering implementing its own BYOD policy, we carefully researched this emerging technology practice. The attached report first provides some background on the BYOD phenomenon before moving onto to a description and analysis of the issues surrounding its use in the courthouse. Finally, we offer our solutions and conclusion identifying what the courthouse must do if it does decide to allow the use of personal devices in the courthouse.
We hope that you find our report helpful in your determinations. Please contact us at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or confusions about the report.
Sincerely,
Information Technology Department
Pace County Courthouse
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the last decade, the workplace, including the courthouse has seen increasing support for the bring you own device (BYOD) phenomenon which has persuaded millions of Americans to use their own, smartphones, tablets, laptops and other mobile devices to perform work related duties. No longer can the courthouse ignore the fact that judges, courthouse staff and visitors, and most importantly attorneys want or require the ability to use and access their personal electronic devices while in the courthouse. To be sure, rather than question whether courts should allow BYOD, the more relevant is how should courts allow BYOD. This report explores that question and concludes that failure to allow BYOD will have significant adverse consequences for the administration of the court. Consequently, the report recommends that the court allow BYOD but not without limitations. Indeed, allowing BYOD without restrictions poses equal if not more intense problems for courthouse administration than prohibiting BYOD. Accordingly, not only should the court allow BYOD but they should allow the practice only under the strict supervisions and regulation of the courthouse IT and security staff. Only in this way can the courthouse allow the BYOD and the benefits that it fosters but in a manner that allows the court to provide its services in the least harmful or intrusive manner. I. Introduction
Over the last decade, the rise of information technology and its integration into almost every facet of life, has had a profound effect on the way we work as well. No more is more evident with the transformation of mobile information technology from the beeper to the cell phone to the smartphone. To be sure, the introduction of the Apple iPhone in 2007 and Google’s Android mobile operating system a year later, not only marked a revolution in how we communicated but also how we do business. The ease and convenience of using a smartphone for consumers made many wonder why using the same of similar technologies at or for work was so difficult (AJD, 2012). These concerns gave rise to the “bring your own device” or BYOD movement, where rather than using the devices or technology that was provided for by their employer, employees instead use their own devices to perform work related tasks.
The effects of BYOD have not simply been felt in business and industry. To be sure, the legal profession, who must often work away from or outside of the office, has been one of the earliest and most faithful adopters of the principles BYOD (AJD, 2012). Consequently, courthouses have become one of the most likely places to encounter BYOD in its ultimate form. One the one hand, the attorneys were, as mentioned, BYOD is an essential job requirement. One the other hand you have everyone else from journalists needing to contact their media organizations. Additionally, the fact of the matter is that in 2016, most people own and use smartphones or other mobile devices whether it’s for business or simply for their personal use; and they more than likely carry the device with them wherever they go.
II. The Issues
Business and industry experts have argued that BYOD practices pose a number risks to enterprises such as the potential that unsecure devices might lead to cyber-attacks, malware downloads or unauthorized access to proprietary or privileged information. While those same concerns are true of courthouse computers and networks that are accessed by judges, lawyers and court employee that BYOD; it is not the only issue that might adversely affect courthouse (AJD, 2012). To be sure, the fact that picture/video taking, audio recording as well as the ability to access the Internet are common functionalities of all current smartphones and tablets; a number of courthouse specific concerns are raised by BYOD. First, a person with access to a smartphone in a courtroom, can take pictures of witnesses, victims and jurors, making them all potentially subject to threats, intimidation or harm. as well as open to violations of their privacy. Second, having access to smartphones in a courtroom can create have a disruptive effect on the proceedings as journalist and reporters try to cover a trial or hearing live or if visitors want to update their social media. Moreover, the disruptive effect of ringing phones or status update chimes is well known. Third, uses of devices in the courtroom may interfere with courtroom recording devices. Lastly, jurors and witnesses with access to smartphones can allow them to perform Internet research about the case, the law, the attorneys on the case, the judge, the victim, share information amongst themselves or otherwise perform any number of acts that would be considered misconduct that threatens their impartiality (Szajna, 2013).
Despite the potential risks that BYOD holds for courthouses, simply banning smartphones and devices from the courthouse or courtroom is unfeasible. As mentioned, mobile devices are now a necessary tool of modern life; prohibiting people from using them would have significant drawbacks to both how the public and the legal profession views the court (AJD, 2012). Additionally, it would create a number of ancillary problems such as limiting courthouse attempts to upgrade its use of technology for scheduling, e-filing, e-discovery, and electronic courtrooms. On the other hand, allowing BYOD without restrictions or limitations is also impractical for the reasons stated in the paragraph above.
Consequently, what can or should a court do to allow for BYOD but in a way that is not harmful to the services that the court provides. This was a question that the U.S. Judicial Conference, attempted to solve in a 2010 memo to federal courts (JCUS, 2010). Although the memo did not adopt a specific policy for courts to follow, it did stress that courts cannot ignore the fact that BYOD is a reality and that a clear BYOD police should be established. Indeed, with the ubiquity of mobile devices, including the growing use of smart watches and other wearable technology, the only real means that courts have available to control or manage BYOD is making sure that an appropriate policy is in place and people are aware of it. As the Judicial Conference mentions in their report, regardless of the BYOD policy that is established, “there should be ample notice provided” including to attorneys, jurors and courthouse visitors; and that “court security officers” understand it and “clearly told how it should be implement it” (JCUS, 2010).
III. The Solution
Any effective BYOD policy begins with the installation or implementation of a secure courthouse-wide computer network and Wi-Fi network. This should include a robust smartphone and mobile device management system (MDMS) that will allow for accessibility to courthouse data, information and communications through a secure application that is downloaded and installed on a device (Cho, 2015). The benefit of an MDMS is that it will allow judges, lawyers, and court staff the ability to access and communication the information resources they might need for their work on their personal devices will separating work applications from personal applications. Moreover, it will allow courthouse IT staff to “force technical controls on the devices such as password requirements, encryption, anti-virus software and the ability to remotely wipe all data” (Cho, 2015). Similarly, with a secure courthouse Wi-Fi network, IT staff can allow or restrict access to courthouse visitors as necessary.
Second, implement a courthouse policy that allows for the unrestricted use of smartphones and other mobile devices in the halls, cafeteria and other areas with two exceptions. First, users of smartphone and other mobile devices are prohibited from using them to take photographs and record video and audio sound. Second, smartphone use in courtrooms is prohibited except under certain conditions. Such as policy should satisfy most people’s BYOD desires without adversely influencing the work of the courthouse or be a hindrance to courthouse attorneys and other courthouse visitors that may need access to their mobile devices.
Third, use of smartphones in courtrooms is prohibited unless the person wanting to use the device in the courtroom signs a contract with the courthouse agreeing to only use to device as specified, including for example to take notes or access information, but not to take pictures, record video or audio sound, or broadcast court proceeding (AOCNJ, 2014). Signing a contract for use of a mobile device in court would have a time limit, and once the time expires, a new contract would have to be signed for continued use. Additional either a paper or electronic version of the contract would have to be with the individual at all time that they plan to use their device in the courtroom (AOCNJ, 2014). It is important to note, that this police would not include jurors who would be forbidden from using their personal devices during a trial or during deliberation.
Fourth, all the policies listed above as well any other additional policies that are added as necessary should be memorialized in a BYOD policy manual. This manual should be made available to all judges, lawyers, and courthouse staff. In addition, courthouse visitors must also be made clearly aware of the BYOD policies through signage posted around the courthouse and in the courtrooms, on the court’s website and through reminders voiced by judges and other court staff. In short, attorneys or courthouse visitors should not be able to say that they were not aware or did not understand what the BYOD policies were.
Fifth, courthouse IT staff must be made to continuously monitor the BYOD policy in order to make changes as necessary. This also includes offering BYOD policy training sessions for judges, court staff, attorneys and visitors. A contact BYOD policy person or office should be established to take lead on all BYOD issues as well as be the main person to ensure that the BYOD policy is being effectively implemented and properly followed.
Lastly, warnings should be made clear that failure to abide by the BYOD policies can result in severe penalties such as contempt of court charges for attorneys and other courthouse visitors or official reprimands for judges and court staff.
IV. Conclusion
As influential technology investor Marc Andreessen once said, “software is eating the world” What he meant is that information technology has become irrevocably integrated into our lives and while only continue to do so. The courthouse is no exception as BYOD will remain an ongoing challenge to courthouse administration. The solution, however, is not to ignore the fact. Instead, courthouses need to recognize the inevitability of technology’s effect and prepare for it. Currently, the best way to accomplish this is to draft, implement, and most importantly, enforce a clear BYOD policy that is flexible enough to take into account any future trends or innovations.
References
Administrative Office of the Courts of New Jersey (AOCNJ). (2014, Dec. 12). Supreme Court guidelines on electronic devices in the courtroom. Retrieved from www.judiciary.state.nj.us/notices/2014/n141216a.pdf
Arizona Judicial Department (AJD). (2012, Jun. 7). Committee on the impact of wireless mobile technologies and social media on court proceedings. Retrieved from http://www.azcourts.gov/portals/74/wire/06072012/meetingpacketred2.pdf
Cho, T.N. (2015, Feb. 28). Bring your own device to work programs: Regulatory and legal risks and how to minimize them. Retrieved from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/bring-your-own-device-to-work-programs-regulatory-and-legal-risks-and-how-to-minimiz
Szajna, R.M. (2013, Dec. 2). Surrendering your smartphone at the courthouse door: addressing the rise of technology-related juror misconduct. Retrieved from http://illinoisjltp.com/timelytech/surrendering-your-smartphone-at-the-courthouse-door-addressing-the-rise-of-technology-related-juror-misconduct/
U.S. Judicial Conference (JCUS). (2010). Considerations in establishing a court policy regarding the use of wireless communication devices. Retrieved from www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/03/dir11-019_pg1-8.pdf
