- ---- - -- -- -- -- -~---- --- - -- ------

¥COURTRAN n SERIES , 

The Impact of Word Processing 

and Electronic Mail on 

United States Courts of Appeals 

~ Federal Judicial Center 

/ 

! 

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
,. 

THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER 

Board 

The Chief Justice of the United States 

Chairman 

Judge Ruggero J. Aldisert 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Third Circuit 

Judge Robert H. Schnacke 

United States District Court 

Northern Di.,-rict of California 

Judge John C. Godbold 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

Judgp. Frank J. McGarr 

United States District Court 

Northern District of J/linois 

Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr. 

United States District Court 

District of Columbia 

William E. Foley 

Director of the Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts 

Director 

A. Leo Levin 

Deputy Director 

Joseph L. Ebersole 

Kenneth C. Crawford 

Continuing Education 

and Training 

Charles W. Nihan 

Innovations 

and Systems Development 

Division Directors 

1520 H Street, N.W. 

William B. Eldridge 

Research 

Alice L. O'Donnell 

Inter·Judicial Affairs 

and Information Services 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

T~'ll_ron 
~HE IMPACT OF 

WORD PHOCESSING AND ELECTRONIC MAIL 

ON UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS 

NCJRS 

JUN 4: \979 

ACQUI S\T\8NS 

By 

J. Michael Greenwood and Larry Farmer 

Federal Judicial Center 

Narch, 1979 

• 
I. 

II. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES • • 

FORWARD 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •• 

INTRODUCTION • • . • 

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY 

Objectives • • • • • • • • • •.•. 

Description of Equipment • • • • • • • • 

Research Instruments • • • • • • • • • • 

Typing Survey •••••••••••• 

Opinion Circulation Survey • • 

Electronic Mail Transmission Report •• 

Interviews and Questionnaire • • • • • 

Appellate Case Tracking Survey • • • • 

v 

vii 

1 

5 

9 

9 

10 

12 

12 

13 

14 

14 

15 

III. TYPING WORKLOAD AND THE NEED FOR WORD PROCESSING. 17 

IV. 

Secretarial Support •• 0 •• 

Types of Documents • . • . 

Typing Time •• • • • . • 

Typing Volume ••• • • • • • • . • • • 

Opinion Preparation Process •• 

Revision Typing •••••••• 

Typing Priorities ••••••. 

Improvements in Typing Productivity 

Time Savings • •••• • • • • • • 

MAIL SERVICE AND THE NEED FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL. 

Description of Electronic Mail • 

Transmission Reliability • • • • 

Comparison of Electronic Mail to U.S. Postal 

Service. • • • • • • • . .• • • 

Costs of Electronic Mail 

iii 

17 

17 

19 

21 

24 

26 

29 

32 

32 

34 

34 

37 

38 

47 
V. 

VI. 

APPELLATE CASE PROCESSING • • • • • • • 51 

Stages Analyzed in Appellate Case Processing. 

Description of Opinions •.••. 

Pre-project Case Processing Time 

Impact of Technology on Case Processing Time •• 

IMPLEMENTING A PERMANENT WORD PROCESSING AND 

ELECTRONIC MAIL SYSTEM • . • • . • 

Word Processing and Electronic Mail Use in the 

51 

· 52 

54 

• 57 

· 66 

Third Circuit • • • .• •••••••••• 66 

Third Circuit Attitudes and Perceptions • • 66 

Use by Clerk of Court . . • • • 68 

Use by Law Clerks • . • • . • . • • • • 69 

Use for Judgment Orders • • • • • • • • • 71 

Recommended Word Processing Equipment for the 

Third Circuit ••••.•.•.•••••.• 71 

Utilization of Word Processing 73 

Training on Word Processing Equipment • • • • • 73 

Electronic Mail for the Third Circuit • . • • • 76 

Word Processing and Electronic Mail Use in Other 

United States Courts of Appeals . • • 78 

Word Processing Equipment for Other Courts 79 

APPENDIX A: Typing Survey Booklet. 

Excerpts from Internal 

Procedures (lOP) Court 

for the Third Circuit. 

. . . . . 81 

APPENDIX B: 

iv 

Operating 

of Appeals 

• • • • • 88 
LIST OF TABLES 

1 Distribution of Secretarial Support Within the 

Third Circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 

Third Circuit Typing Survey 

2 Secretar ial T:i.me Spent Typing •.•••.• 20 

3 Average Number of Lines Typed per Eight-Hour Day 

Per Secretary • . • • . . • . . . 

4 Typing Volume Information . • 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Volume Information by Document Category • 

Revision Typing by Document Category 

Revision Typing by Author 

Rush Typing by Document 

Rush Typing by Author • 

10 Third Circuit Electronic Mail Survey: 

Transmissions Sent and Received • • • 

11 Third Circ~it Electronic Mail Survey: 

Frequency af Transmission Disruptions 

12 Third Circuit Opinion Circulation and 

Electronic Mail Surveys: Number of 

Opinions Exchanged by Page Size . . 

13 Third Circuit Opinion Circulation and 

Electronic Mail Surveys: Comparative 

Delivery Times for Postal Service and 

Electronic Mail (EM) . . . . 14 Third Circuit Opinion Circulation Survey: 

Opinions Sent and Received . . . . 

v 

22 

23 

25 

27 

28 

30 

31 

36 

39 

41 

42 

43 
15 Third Circuit Opinion Circulation and 

Electronic Mail Surveys: Average Delivery Time 

by u.s. Postal Service and Electronic Mail 44 

16 Schematic Representation of Average 

Delivery Time Between Postal Service and 

Electronic Mail Among Third Circuit Locations. . 46 

17 Third Circuit Electronic Mail Survey: 

Estimated Costs for the Third Circuit 50 

18 Word Processing and Electronic Mail Project: 

Distribution of Written Opinions ••••. 53 

Case Processing Time: 

19 For Pre-Project Cases 

20 For Pre-Project Versus Word Processing21 

22 

23 

Electronic Mail Cases 

For Project Cases 

Pre-Project and Project Cases by 

Judge (All Opinions) • • • . • • 

Pre-Project and Project Cases by 

Judge (Only Signed Opinions) • • 

24 Judge and Secretary Attitudes Toward Word 

55 

58 

61 

63 

64 

Processing and Electronic Mail • • . 67 

25 Third Circuit Typing Survey: A Comparison of Judge 

Originated and Law Clerk Originated Typing . 70 

26 Third Circuit Typing Survey: Comparison of Typing 

Volume on the Word Processor and Other 

Typing Equipment . • • • • III 

vi 

74 
FOREWORD 

Technology has always held a special fascination for those 

interested in court improvement. At its best, it offers overburdened courts an alternative between increasing the judiciary's 

size or reducing access to the courts. Appellate courts, in a 

decade of explosive increases in their caseloads, have been 

especially anxious to take advantage of technological innovations. 

Because technology seems to promise so much, and seems so mysterious, there is, however, the temptation to adopt technolbgical innovations without first carefully evaluating their contributions, 

their costs, and possible secondary effect on the operating procedures and relationships of a court and its staff. 

At the request of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the 

JUdicial Center undertook an evaluation of a test, in that court, 

of word processing machines and a related electronic document 

transmission capability. What would happen, the court was interested in learning, if each judge's chambers had available an 

electronic word processing system for the preparation of opinions, " 

and furthermore, if the machinery in each judge's chambers coule 

be coupled with a telecommunications system to allow draft opinions to be electronically transmitted between chambers in 

different cities? 

How would this affect the productivity of each judge, and of 

the judges as they work in panels of three? What would be the 

comparative costs with other office equipment and with postal and 

other forms of transmission? How would the use of these innovations affect other aspects of the work of the judge and those who 

serve as his support staff? This report descrlbes the evaluation 

vii 
that the Center undertook and presentB the results. The test 

achieved substantial time savings, and they are attributable 

almost entirely to reduction in the time-consuming process of 

opinion drafting. And, no less important than these time savings 

is the conclusion that they were achieved without disrupting 

established and productive organizational relationships within the 

Circuit. The effect of the word processing equipment .is striking. 

The authors are able to attribute to it an overall reduction of 6% 

(or three weeks) in the total time from filing to disposing of an 

appeal that r.equired a wr itten opinion. There were reductions of 

52% and 25% respectively in the time required by the court specifically to prepare and to issue per curiam and signed opinions. 

Substantial decrease in secretarial typing time devoted to opinions was documented. The electronic mailing capability reduced 

delivery time by 75%, albeit at obviously higher costs than the 

postal service. However, the efficacy of this technology is 

mitigated by occasionally uneven reliability of the transmissions, 

a problem to which further attention is being addressed. 

We at the Center hope that two purposes will be served by 

this report. On the one hand, it presents a description of an 

evaluation effort that analyzed the impact of a technological 

innovation carefully and on several types of measures. It should 

be noted, in this context, that the quality of this particular 

evaluation was enhanced by prior Center research concerning the 

internal op~rating procedures of the Third Circuit. Moreover, the 

Courtran computers and staff were in place and able to develop the 

electronic mail application without the need for major start-up 

costs. Second, the report reveals to hard-pressed appellate 

courts the potential benefit of word processing technology. 

The Center is bound to acknowledge its debt to several groups 

who made possible this evaluation. One is the Third Circuit Court 

of Appeals--the judges, their professional and secretarial staffs, 

viii 
and the staff of the court itself. Moreover, the Congress was 

willing to appropriate the monies for the rental of .the word 

processing equipment, with the understanding that the Center would 

not take advantage of a favorable rent-purchase arrangement unless 

the word proceSSing evaluation proved successful. 

without the cooperation of the Court or of the Congress, we 

would have been unable to provide this report of the costs and 

benefits ~i this new tech~ological innovation in appellate case 

processing. 

A. Leo Levin 

Director 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

A key objective of appellate courts is to process appeals as 

expeditiously as possible while discharging their appellate 

responsibilities properly. Although various appellate courts are 

introducing procedur.al reforms to improve the appellate process, 

few attempts have been made to expedite the preparation and 

dissemination of written appellate opinions. 

Word processing and electronic mail are two technologies 

frequently identified as part of the lloffice of the future. ll 

These technologies are expected to provide greater productivity 

and faster service and to reduce the costs of preparing and 

disseminating the printed word. What potential do these 

technologies have for appellate courts? 

At the request of the u.s. Court of Appeals for the Third 

Circuit, the Federal JUdicial Center undertook a study to assess 

the impact of word processing and electronic mail on the 

appellate'process. The major research questions were 

.~ .' 

Does federal appellate workload justify the use of word 

processing or electronic mail equipment? 

How would the introduction of these technologies improve 

efficiency in expediting the processing of appeals? 

How would the implementation of these technologies improve 

efficiency in the drafting and production of opinions? 

What impact might these technologies have on secretarial 

performance and productivity and on judges' and law clerks' 

performance and work styles? 

What impact would these technologies have on reducing the 

time to distribute and review draft opinions among court 

members? 
2 

Ten judges and several administrators located in six cities 

in the Third Circuit were each provided a modern cathode ray tube 

(CRT--a television-like display screen) word processing system 

containing a telecommunications capability. The Federal Judicial 

Center developed a special computer software program to give each 

Third Circuit user access to a central "ele~tronic mail post 

office" system on the Courtran II computer. 

Several research instruments, including typing surveys, 

opinion circulation surveys, and appellate-case tracking surveys, 

were completed during a 1977-1978 demonstration project to 

evaluate the impact of these technologies upon the Court of 

Appeals for the Third Circuit. 

The general findings from the Third Circuit study are: 

1. The average typing load for an appellate judge's 

secretary is substantially heavier than the typical typing 

load in corporate law firms or business offices. 

2. The flow of typing is uneven, often unpredictable, and 

difficult to control~ it requires substantial amounts of 

revision and rush typing. 

3. The typing workload in the Third Circuit is heavy and the 

court would benefit from using up-to~date word processing 

equipment. 

4. Word processing technology is cost-beneficalfor the 

Courts of Appeals. The equipment decreases the cost of 

preparing court opinions~ allows better utilization of 

support personnel (secretaries and law clerks) in each 

judge's chamber~ increases judges' productivity~ and speeds 

the production and dissemination of draft and final 

opinions. 

5. Word processing equipment increases secretarial 

productivity by 200 to 300 percent and decreases the number 

of typing hours by half. 

6. Word processing consistently decreases the time required 

to prepare written opinions. This report documents a 52 

percent reduction in the time required by the court to 

prepare and issue per curiam opinions and a 25 percent 

reduction in the time to prepare signed opinions. 

( 
3 

7. Word processing reduced the overall appellate processing 

time (the time from filing the appeal to disposition of the 

appeal) by 6 percent. 

8. Word processing equipment does not require a judge to 

alter work style or procedures. 

9. Judges and secretaries express near-unanimous support for 

word processing equipment. 

10. Each judge's chamber in the Third Circuit and selected 

administrative offices should be provided with at least 

a one-terminal (single CRT) word proGessing system. 

11. Electronic mail reduces by 75 percent the time for the 

court to exchange draft opinions and other memoranda (U.S. 

postal service averages two days compared to .3 day for 

electronic mail). Electronic mail delivers 70 percent of 

documents the day they are sent and almost insures receipt 

within one working day, compared to U.S. postal service 

delivery of I percent the same day and 50 percent within one 

working day. 

12. Electronic mail is substantially more expensive than 

regular u.S. postal service, but substantially cheaper than 

either facsimile transmission or private express delivery 

services. 

13. Electronic mail does not decrease the time a court takes 

to review an opinion. The Third Circuit's current internal 

operating procedures might limit the potential impact of 

electronic mail on opinion processing. 

The selection and implementation of any technology and 

associated administrative procedures can be complicated and 

burdensome. The study suggests 

that opinions and judgment orders are ideally suited to word 

processing technology 

that both law clerks and the clerk of court should make 

greater use of word processing equipment, in particular, 

law clerks should be trained ~o use the word processor 

that secretaries in the Third Circuit be given additional 

word processing training in the use of advanced editing 

features: and that any court adopting word processing 

technology establish a two-phase training program, 

emphasizing basic features during initial training and 

advanced features during a separate training program 
4 

that judges should carefully study and compare one another's 

office procedures and work styles: some judges prepare draft· 

signed opinions twice as fast as other judges (the fastest 

judge in the Circuit averages 50 days; the slowest judge 100 

days) 

that additional word processing applications not originally 

implemented during this study should be started, such as 

printing of slip opinions, and preparation of reports and 

urgent motions in the clerk's office. 

We conclude that the study strongly supports permanent 

installation of word processing equipment, but provides 

inconclusive evidence for the permanent installation of 

electronic mail. 

~, 
I. INTRODUCTION 

The press, popular magazines, and technical journals 

frequently inform us about the anticipated "paperless society," 

"electronic age of information exchange and storage," "demise of 

the U.S. postal system," "birth of electronic mail service," and 

"installation of a computer terminal or word processor in every 

office and home." Although many of these above predictions may 

come true, they do not offer insight into the potential impact of 

electronic technology on the appellate court process. 

Many reformers believe that appeals court should take much 

less time to perfect and deliberate the appeal. The National 

Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals 

propose~ that the Dispositional Time in Review [Appellate] Courts 

for criminal cases presenting substantial issues should be within 

ninety days after imposition of sentence by the trial court. l 

President Carter has suggested that legislation should be drafted 

for a speedy appeals act. 

Some appellate courts are actively involved in a variety of 

procedural or administrative reforms. 2 Recent appellate reforms 

1. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Courts 126-27, 

Standard 6.4 (1973). 

2. See, for example, Appellate Justice Improvement Project under 

the auspices or the National Center for State Courts. 

5 
6 

include settlement conferences,3 accelerated docket procedures,4 

centralized research staff attorneys,S and oral decision dockets 

(similar to the English courts where appellate judges issue 

decisions from the bench).6 

Although these and similar measures will help divert, 

.consolidate, eliminate, or expedite appeals, there will still be 

a substantial number of appeals requiring appellate courts to 

deliberate, and to prepare, review, and publish written opinions. 

In the recent past, the potential benefits of word processing 

and electronic mail to help expedite the opinion preparation 

process were often overlooked or underestimated. For example, 

the 1975 National Conference on Appellate Justice prepared more 

than a thousand pages of briefing materials a~d eonference 

conclusions but there is no suggestion or comment on using 

technologies for the preparation and dissemination of opinions. 

Various appellate courts are beginning to examine and 

introduce modern management tools. Both federal and state 

appellate courts are developing computer-based information 

systems to monitor the appellate case flow better, provide more 

accurate statistical information, and offer improved court 

3. See J. Goldman, An Evaluation of the Civil Appeals Management 

Plan-:--An Experiment in Judicial Administration (Federal Judicial 

Center 1977) and Goldman, The Ap ellate Settlement Conference: An 

Effective Procedural Reform? 2 State Court Journal 3 { 

4. See, for example Jacobsen &.Schroeder, Arizona Experiment 

with Appellate Reform 63 A.B.A.J. 1227 (1977). 

5. See D. Meador, Appellate Courts: Staff and Process in the 

Crisrs-of Volume (1974) and P. Carrington, D. Meador and M. 

Rosenberg, Justice on Appeal (1977). 

6. The Oregon Court of Appeals and the California First District 

Court of Appeals (San Francisco). 
7 

services. 7 Several detailed studies on the development and 

utilization of computer-aided legal research in the appellate 

courts have been published recently.8 

Among businesses and government agencies, word processing is 

widely acknowledged as a technology whose time has come, and 

electronic mail, as a technology whose time is coming. A few 

appellate courts have already begun using word processing 

equipment. To date, no comprehensive study has reported on the 

effects of either technological innovation on the appellate 

process. Only one published report has assessed the actual 

impiementation of these technologies in an appellate court. 9 

This pilot proje~tp completed six years ago by the U.S. Emergency 

Court of Appeals, in conjunction with the Federal Judicial 

Center, provided inconclusive findings. It assessed equipment 

that is now considered obsolete, and both technologies were used 

only sporadically. 

Various manufacturers and businesses have claimed substantial 

productivity gains from such technologies. Self-serving interests of this kind, however, are likely to ignore or misrepresent 

the implications of such technologies for the courts. It is 

important to carefully consider these implications for appellate 

courts, particularly when the costs and benefits have not been 

previously assessed. 

7. As part of the Courtran II program, the federal courts are 

developing an Appellate Information Management Systems (AIMS) 

with the Federal Judicial Center; various state appellate courts, 

such as those in Alaska, the District of Columbia, Idaho, 

Missouri, North Dakota, and Oregon, are also preparing computer 

information systems. 

8. For example, A. Sager, An Evaluation of Computer-Assisted 

Legal Research Systems for Federal Court Applications (Federal 

Judicial Center 1977); Search Group Inc., Automated Legal Rese~rch: A Study of Criminal Justice Agencies (1978), R. 

Caldwell, Issues in Automated Legal Research, National Center for 

State Courts Research Essay Series No.3, 1977). 

9. S. Flanders, Pilot Project on Communicating Automatic 

Equipment (Federal JUdicial Center 1973). 
8 

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit asked the Federal 

Judicial Center to help implement and evaluate modern office 

equipment, specifically word processing and electronic mail. The 

Third Circuit wanted to determine whether these technologies 

might increase judicial productivity and expedite the preparation 

and dissemination of appellate court opinions. 

Word processing and electronic mail equipment were installed 

in the chambers of each circuit judge and several administrative 

offices, (clerk of court, circuit executive; secretarial pool) 

and a special software computer program was written for the 

Federal Judicial Center's Courtran II computers to help provide 

an electronic mail service. To aid in a comprehensive study of 

the impact of these technologies, the court permitted the Center 

to collect sensitive and confidential information about case 

processing techniques such as office practices, work styles, and 

opinion drafting techniques. 

This study focuses on the technology and equipment that may 

become commonplace in American business in the late 1970s and 

early 1980s, particularly as applied to the Third Circuit. 

( 

, 
lIn RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY 

Objectives 

One of the primary objectives of the Third Circuit--and all 

other appellate courts--is "to insure that appeals are processed 

as expeditiously as possible consistent with a careful discharge 

of proper appellate responsibilities."10 

The general purpose of this evaluation was to assess the 

impact of word processing and electronic mail technology on 

appellate court efficiency. We considered two types of 

efficiency: 

court efficiency in expediting the production and 

productivity in each judge's office (the amount and 

speed at which court documents, particularly 

written opinions, could be prepared, edited, 

retyped, and disseminated). Research techniques 

such as typing and communications surveys helped 

measure such criteria. 

court efficiency in expediting the average time to 

process a case (the number of days gained or lost 

by introducing and implementing technological 

innovations). A case-tracking survey that measured 

time intervals between crucial appellate stages 

helped measure this criterion. 

From a judge's perspective, the first criteria might be more 

important, but an administrator might place greater weight on the 

second. From the public's perspective, improvements in both 

types of efficiency are very desirable. 

This study examined the impact these technologies might have 

on the processing of appeals, especiallY during the court's 

deliberation process; and judicial and secretarial productivity 

within chambers, especially for the preparation of written 

opinions. 

10. United States Court cf Appeals for the Third Circuit, 

Internal Operating Procedures at v (1974). 

9 
10 

The study attempted to address the following questions: 

1. What impact might word processing equipment have on 

--secretarial productivity 

--internal office procedures within ajudge's chambers 

--the productio.n and preparation of opinions 

--the appellate decision-making process--in particular, 

the drafting of opinions? 

2. What impact might electronic mail capability in each 

office have on 

--internal office procedures 

--the delay in distributing and delivering opinions among 

offices 

--the appellate decision-making process--in particular, 

the dissemination and review of draft opinions? 

Description of Equipment 

Each appellate judge's office and a few administrative 

offices (clerk. of court, circuit executive, and central pool 

secretaries) were provided with a modern word processing system, 

a Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) word processing models 

WP100 or WP102. Each system contains: 

1. a video display (cathode ray tube) station: a device 

resembling a television screen used to display typed text, 

and a keyboard console that allows text to be entered and 

edited. In two offices, circuit executive and secretarial 

pool, a dual video terminal display system was installed. 

2. a printer: device that prints forty-five characters per 

second in high-quality typescript 

3. dual "floppy" diskette drives: a device that permits text 

to be stored and retrieved from flexible discs, each of 

which can store up to 120 pages of text (two dual drives 

were installed in the circuit executive and secretarial 

pool offices) 
I 

I 

• 

, 

I 

11 

4. a communications package: a software program and hardware 

adaptors that permit the word processing machine to 

transfer information to and from other word processors or 

computers. 

This word processing equipment contains most text-editing 

features found in the more advanced word processor models. It can 

be used to telecommunicate over regular government telephone 

lines, with the Federal Judicial Center's Courtran II computers 

in Washington, D.C. 

Word processors (also known as "text editors" or "automatic 

typewriters"), particularly video display word processors, allow 

each user to 

store on magnetic medium (floppy disc) and recall for 

editing any typed text in any format 

change rapidly both the content and format of text with 

or without printing text on paper 

make corrections easily, quickly, and with assurance that 

the text is accurately printed 

print high-quality, clean copies 

more rapidly type original text (15 to 50 percent 

faster), and print text (500 to 1,000 percent faster) 

than on a standard typewriter 

reproduce text on paper and/or transmit electronically to 

other machines for printing and/or visual review 

rapidly prepare and print standard documents or forms. 

The Third Circuit judges, like judges in many other federal 

appeals courts are not all permanently located in the same city. 

Although the court does sit in Philadelphia to hold conferences 

and oral arguments, their permanent chambers are spread among six 

ci ties wi thin three states (Camden and Net":u k, New Jersey; 

Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; and 

Wilmington, Delaware). Communication capability was provided in 

each word processing machine to permit judges to circulate 

documents among each other through telecommunications. 
12 

Research Instruments 

To comprehensively assess the impact and value of these 

technologies on the workload within each judge's chambers and on 

the appellate case process itself, five distinct research techniques were used. A typing survey allowed evaluation of each 

offices's typing workload and capacity to prepare opinions and 

other court documents. An opinion circulation survey measured the 

delivery times for U.S. postal service among judges' offices-- in 

particular, the delivery schedules between each pair of the six 

cities within the circuit. An electronic mail transmission report 

allowed us to calculate the precise delivery times among judges' 

offices and tabulate electronic mail usage rates. Interviews and 

questionnaires for each judge and secretary revealed personal 

attitudes and preference~ towards the adoption of the technology, 

and individual practices and informal administrative policies 

within each judge's office. An appellate case survey allowed us 

to compare changes in appellate processing time before and after 

the introduction of word processing and electronic mail technologies. 

Typing Survey 

The typing survey examined the typing production in each 

judge's office and the circuit executive's office during a threeweek period from May 15 to June 5, 1978, several months after the 

word processing equipment was installed. A secretary after 

typing any document, completed a detailed log form (see appendix 

A) showing the author, purpose, priority requirements and length 

of each document typed, the typing machine used, and the amount 

of daily time spent at typing and at work. All eighteen secretaries working for ten circuit judges and a circuit executive 

located in the six cities submitted completed logs. 

The typing survey followed word processing industry 

practices of sampling typing production over several weeks to 

estimate typing volumes, requirements, and characteristics. 

Since the content of the draft opinions is confidential and the 

survey could not be disruptive or obstructive, the amount of 
13 

information solicited and the number of days surveyed were 

somewhat limited. Rather than attempt a more comprehensive 

sampling effort--by sampling information at different times 

during the entire project .and by collecting carbon copies of each 

document prepared--data was collected during a period the court 

believe represented the normal work pace of the Third Circuit. 

No unique events occurred during the survey period to disrupt 

the circuit's normal work flow. Although some judges and secretaries were absent for part of the survey there were no more 

absences than would normally be anticipated. 

Some data collection problems did arise. In this survey, a 

few secretaries did not diligently record all typing information 

requested. One secretary frequently reported only the amount of 

time spent typing and the total number of documents typed; not 

listed were the number of lines typed or the identity of some 

documents. Her typing data are necessarily underrepresented in 

the survey. In another instance, the secretary sometimes did not 

separate other secretarial duties from her typing activities, 

thereby overestimating typing time. Overall, methodological 

errors in reporting tended to balance each other, and did not 

significantly affect the overall results of the Third Circuit 

typing survey. The survey limitations, however prevent assurance 

that we have accurate statistics of the work in each office. 

Opinion Circulation Survey 

During the typing survey in May and June, 1978, each 

secretary also completed a detailed log listing all opinions 

exchanged (see appendix D for sample instructions and reporting 

form). For each opinion sent or received, the secretary 

identified the document by author, case number, length, and 

recipient. The log also listed the manner in which the document 

was sent and the date it was actually sent or received. This 

survey was designed primarily to estimate the U.S. postal service 

delivery time for exchanging opinions. 

Some secretaries were not diligent in recording the number, 

names of recipients, and date for every opinion sent from their 
14 

offices. However, the number of opinions recorded was sufficient 

to proceed with the analysis of postal delivery times. 

Electronic Mail Transmission Report 

A complete software program was prepared to monitor unobtrusively and to track conti~uously each electronic mail 

transmission in the Third Circuit. The comprehensive data from 

the electronic mail transmission reports provided an extremely 

reliable log of the telecommunication exchanges among the circuit 

offices. Each time a judge or administrator contacted the 

Courtran II computer facility to either send a document, inquire 

if any documents were awaiting transmission, or receive a 

document, the computer automatically registered the identity of 

the user, the date and time for each activity, the type of 

activity (send, receive, or inquiry), and the success or failure 

for each transmission. 

This report permitted detailed tabulation qnd analysis of the 

entire electronic mail service. Although the computer program 

contained some diagnostic information when a particular transmission failed, the monitoring system could not identify the 

precise cause of the problem: computer hardware, computer 

software, telephone lines, or word processor failure. 

Interviews and Questionnaire 

Each participating judge and secretary was interviewed in 

person or by telephone sometime during the project to elicit 

information about perceptions and attitudes. The interviewees 

were asked to comment on 

work styles and habits concerning the preparation and 

drafting of opinions, bench memoranda, and other court 

papers 

formal and informal office procedures, especially those 

affecting typing workload and the preparation of 

opinions 

flow of work and documents within the office and among 

colleagues in the circuit 
15 

judgments on typing and oplnlon review priorities, policies, and requirements 

impact and influence of word processing and electronic 

mail technologies on office practices and procedures 

role of law clerks and their needs for typing support 

personal knowledge of and facility with the equipment. 

Interviews and questionnaires were structured and standardized to tabulate group judgments and attitudes and to enable 

direct comparisons between offices. 

Appellate Case Tracking Survey 

Not every appeal requires an opinion. According to the 1977 

statistics of the Administrative Office of the u.s. Courts 

(A.O~), opinions are written in 5~ percent of terminated cases 

among the U. S. Courts of Appeals, and in only 25 percent of 

cases in the Third Circuit. Because this study examined the 

impact of two technologies on the opinion preparation process, 

it was considered desirable to assess only cases resulting in 

written opinions. 

Although the A. O. annually reports some median interval 

times for cases terminated in each Court of Appeal, those A. o. 

statistics are insufficient for detailed analysis of a comparison 

between pre-project and project cases. 

Both technologies were fully implemented in early March 1978. 

Beginning April 1, 1978 all opinions filed were classified as 

cases potentially influenced by one of the technological innovations--"project cases." A control group consisting of all cases 

with opinions filed between July 1, 1976 and December 31, 1977 

was labeled "pre-project cases." 

The following case information was obtained, for both project 

and pre-project cases, from court records li~lted in the clerk of 

the court's docket book entries of the Third Circuit and the 

Confidential Case Monitoring Report: the case name and docket 

number, category of case, names of judges assigned to the panel 
• 

16 

and judge assigned to prepare the draft opinion, type of 

appellate proceeding (oral argument or submission of briefs 

only), type of opinion (per curiam or signed), and vote. In 

addition, date was obtained for each of the four crucial events 

in the appellate process: filing of notice of appeal, listing 

for disposition on the merits (oral argument or submission of 

briefs), distribution of draft opinion to the panel~ and filing 

of the opinion. This information permitted the tabulation on 

each appeal of the appeal time for various phases of both the 

litigants' preparation of the appeal and the court's review and 

deliberation. with this information, detailed statistical 

comparisons could be made between cases preceding and following 

the introduction of both technologies, and other contributing 

variables or procedures normally associated with the appell~te 

process could be assessed. 

The only opinions excluded from this survey were from those 

cases the Third Circuit classifies as "CAV." CAV cases are 

atypical in that they do not reflect procedures normally followed 

by this court. These cases are delayed after submission or oral 

argument because of extenuating circumstances or legal precedent 

or policies. These exempt cases fall into three categories: 

cases that need additional sub8~antative information from 

contesting parties, including additional information in the 

briefs: cases that need additional portions of the record 

(transcript of trial proceedings or court documents) from the 

trial court or government agency: or cases delayed pen~!ng a 

Supreme Court decision or another circuit court decision. CAV 

cases eliminated only 2 to 3 percent from each sample • 

""":'
III. TYPING WORKLOAD AND THE NEED FOR WORD EROCESSING 

Secretarial Support 

At the time of the typing survey, there were eighteen fulltime secretaries working in the Third Circuit judges' chambers or 

circuit executive offices. Each judge was supported by at least 

one full-time secretary and most judges had additional half-time 

or pool secretarial support. 

There are at least three principals in each judge's office 

(the judge and two ldw clerks) who may require typing support 

from the secretary. The ratio of secretary per principal in 

judge's office (table 1) varies from .33 to .67, with an overall 

ratio of .5 secretary per principal (two principals per 

secretary). This support ratio is quite low, considering the 

additional administrative and secretarial support duties assigned 

most secretaries in the circuit, and compared to support services 

in efficient law firms. Law firms typically employ one secretary 

or administrative support for each attorney (.75 to 1.0 secretary 

per principal). 

The ninety-fifth Congress approved an increase in the 

authorized secretarial support for each Third Ci~cuit judge to 

two full-time secretaries in each judge's office (an increase to 

.67 secretary per principal). 

Types of Documents 

Documents typed in judges' chambers can be conveniently 

classified in six categories: opinions (signed or per curiam), 

bench memoranda (prepared before oral arguments), judgment orders 

(prepared by the senior ranking judge on a panel, for issuance 

after oral argument or conference panel decision), speeches, 

general correspondence, and miscellaneous typing. 

Each document category has its unique typing characteristics: 

Opinions. Lengthy documents, typically ten to fifteen 

legal-size pages--although some per curiam opinions are short 

17 
hrr_ 

TABLE 1 

DISTRIBUTION OF SECRETARIAL SUPPORT 

WITHIN THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

Number of Number of 

Principals Secretaries Secretaries 

Chambers/ per 

Office --.------------------------------------------------------- Principal 

Judges 

Judge A 1 

Judge B 1 

Judge C 1 

Judge D 1 

Judge E 1 

Judge F 1 

Judge G 1 

Judge H 1 

Judge I 1 

Judge J 1 

Totals 10 

Admin. Personnel 

or Law Clerks 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

20 

Full-Time Pool Secretary 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

12 

(Full-Time equiv.) 

1 

.5 

.5 

• 5 

.5 

.5 

3.5 

.67 

.50 

.50 

.50 

.33 

.33 

.33 

.33 

.50 

.67 

0.5 

Principals 

per 

Secretary 

1.5 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.5 

2.0 

I-' 

co 
19 

(four to five pages) and some signed opinions are lengthy (forty 

to sixty pages). Each opinion consists of a standard title page 

fully identifying the case, participating parties (litigants, 

counsel, and judges), and dates, followed by text with appropriate footnotes on each page and virtually no repetitive text. 

Each opinion normally requires moderate to heavy revisions, 

several typed drafts, and expeditious production of each 

revision. 

Bench Memoranda. These documents vary in length depending on 

the nature of the legal issue and the author's (usually a law 

clerk) writing style. Memoranda have a lower typing priority 

than opinions. They usually contain no repetitive text and 

seldom require revision or retyping. 

Judgment Orders. Short documents (one or two pages) consisting of a standard format and standard text (also known as 

"boilerplate form," i.e., nearly all text is similar except 

identification -of case and parties, and possibly a small portion 

of the narrative). Judgment orders are seldom revised; they are 

frequently produced by the senior members of the court. 

Correspondence. Short documents (one or two pages) or 

letters, such as acknowledgement letters to law clerk applicants 

and law professors. Correspondence is s~ld0m revised and it may 

or may not contain repatitive or standard text with variable 

infor.mation. 

Speeches. Longer documents (five to ten pages). Speeches 

generally undergo moderate revision. This category is a small 

proportion of typing demand. 

Miscellaneous. Usually very short internal memos, letters, 

and correspondence (under one page). These documents are seldom 

revised. 

Typing .Time 

A Third Circuit judge's secretary averages eight-and-aquarter hours per working day in the office (table 2); however, 

the average number of hours spent typing varies tremendously 

according to the judge initiating the work and by work day within 
------- --~-- -----~-

20 

TABLE 2 

THIRD CIRCUIT TYPING SURVEY: 

SECRETARIAL TIME SPENT TYPING 

Days Range of 

Worked Avg. No. Avg. No. Percentage Typing 

Chambers/ During Hours at Hours Work Time Time 

Office Survey Work Typing Typing Low High 

Period Per Day Per Day % % 

Judge A 

Al 14 8.8 3.3 37 11 61 

Judge B 

Bl 16 8.9 4.7 52 15 89 

Judge C 

Cl 15 9.4 7.3 78 63 89 

Judge D 

Dl 15 9.0 1.7 19 6 39 

Judge E 

El 5 8.1 1.2 15 0 29 

Judge F 

Fl 15 8.4 2.3 27 9 47 

Judge G 

Gl 11 8.2 1.5 18 10 30 

G2 5 8.0 1.0 13 0 25 

Judge H 

HI 9 8.6 2.7 31 14 53 

Judge I 

II 14 9.2 1.8 19 3 45 

Judge J 

Jl 15 7.3 3.1 42 0 76 

J2 13 8.0 5.5 69 50 88 

Pool 

Secretaries 

(Judges A & J) 14 7.0 4.7 67 27 91 

(Judges A & J) 14 8.5 4.6 54 35 73 

(Judges B & I) 14 7.4 1.7 26 0 40 

(Judges C & D) 13 7.7 1.6 20 0 56 

Circuit 

Executive 

CEI 14 8.0 0.3 4 0 31 

CE2 11 8.0 2.2 29 6 48 

Avg. 

For All 

Circuit 

Secretaries 12.6 8.3 2.1 25 

Avg. For Judge 

And Pool 

Secretaries 12.6 8.3 2.2 25 
21 

the same office. On any particular day the proportion of the 

work day spent in typing ranges from 0 to 90 percent, and the 

average time a secretary spent in typing during the survey period 

ranged from 15 to 78 percent of a normal eight-hour day. 

This rapidly fluctuating demand for typing services is common 

in nearly all offices and is characteristic of small businesses, 

legal offices, and companies in which one or two secretaries 

serve only a few executives and professionals. Apparently, the 

flow of typing work in the Third Circuit is uneven, often unpredictable, and difficult to control considering the nature of the 

work, the size of the staff, and diverse locality of the offices. 

A typical secretary in a Third Circuit judge's office spends 

approximately 25 percent of the time typing. This percentage is 

high when compared to industry and business offices, where 

secretaries' typing time averages 15 to 25 percent (without word 

processing equipment), or to corporate legal departments, where 

secretarial personnel spend 23 percent of their time typing. ll 

Thus, Third Circuit secretaries spend slightly more time typing 

than their counterparts in private practice or corporate legal 

departments. 

Typing Volume 

The workload trends identified in the typing time statistics 

are consistent with volUme statistics. Typical typing volume 

varies greatly among offices and secretaries (table 3). Typing 

volume data (table 4) reveal the diversity of the typing load 

within the circuit--volumes ranged from 0 to 2,600 lines per day, 

and the total during the three week survey period ranged from 

approximately 2,000 to 19,000 lines. In a few instances, typing 

11. According to Traux, Smith, and Associates Inc., Word 

Processing and Office Systems Consultants, Wilmington, Delaware 

(unpublished word processing industry surveys,"1977). 
Secretary 

Al 

Bl 

Cl 

Dl 

El 

Fl 

Gl 

G2 

HI 

II 

Jl 

J2 

CEI 

CE2 

Pool Secretaries 

A & J 

A & J 

B & I 

C & D 

Avg. for All 

Secretaries 

22 

TABLE 3 

THIRD CIRCUIT TYPING SURVEY: 

AVERAGE NUMBER OF LINES TYPED PER 

EIGHT-HOUR DAY PER SECRETARY 

Total Lines Eight Hour Day 

Typed During Equivalents 

the Survey Worked During 

Period the Survey 

Period 

5,559 15.4 

7,174 17.8 

5,323 17.6 

5,105 16.9 

397 5 

9,275 15.8 

4,150 11. 3 

472 5 

3,063 9.7 

3,426 16.1 

9,785 13.7 

8,960 13 

469 14 

2,531 11 

12,5413 14.9 

8,512 12.2 

1,851 13 

1,875 12.5 

5,O26 13.1 

Avg. for Judge and 

Pool Secretaries 5,467 13.2 

Average 

Number of 

Lines Typed 

per Eight 

Hour Day 

361 

403 

302 

302 

79 

587 

367 

94 

316 

213 

714 

689 

34 

230 

842 

698 

142 

150 

384 

414 
23 

TABLE 4 

THIRD CIRCUIT TYPING SURVEY: 

TYPING VOLUME INFORMATION 

Chambers/ Total Lines Average Lines Documents 

Offices Typed Typed/Day Produced 

or Edited 

Judge A 13,953 930 73 

Judge B 8,659 577 110 

Judge C 5,865 391 40 

Judge D 5,300 353 43 

Judge E 10,201 680 63 

Judge F 9,303 602 159 

Judge G 4,501 300 37 

Judge H 2,368 158 19 

Judge I 3,942 263 65 

Judge J 18,820 1,233 208 

Circuit Exec. 3,0"0 200 55 

Other Judges 4,585 306 14 

Totals for All 

Offices 9",497 6,031 886 

Totals for Judges 

and Pool 

Secretaries 87,497 5,831 833 
24 

volume was reduced because of judges' vacations. Typing volume, 

like typing time, is considerably heavier in circuit chambers 

(414 lines per day per secretary) than in corporate legal departments (159 lines per day per secretary) or Smith and Traux 

12 industry typing standards (138 lines per day per secretary). 

Typing production appears to be more related to work demands 

than to available secretarial support. Some secretaries are 

required to provide substantially more typing production than 

other secretaries at the same location or at other offices. 

Again, the data strongly suggest that typing is unevenly 

distributed, and demands are moderate to heavy in nearly all 

Third Circuit offices. 

Opinion Preparation Process 

Opinions are the longest documents prepared by circuit 

judges. Within the Third Circuit they average twelve pages each 

and constitute the largest single document category (37 percent 

of all typing) of typing work (table 5). Several procedures are 

used for initial drafting and revision of opinions in the 

circuit. Some judges usually prepare the initial draft of an 

opinion, then assign law clerks to undertake additional research 

and make further revisions. In other chambers, the law clerk 

prepares the initial draft, working from bench memoranda or 

discussion notes. Typically, a law clerk submits a draft opinion 

in longhand or personally types several drafts on a standard 

typewriter. In a few courts, the law clerk has learned to use 

the word processing machine or the secretary types the law 

clerk's initial draft into the word processing machine. In too 

many cases, opinions initially prepared by a law clerk are not 

typed on a word processing machine until after the judge reviews 

and edits the initial draft. 

12. The Smith and Traux statistics were based on 369 typing 

surveys of 5,900 secretarial positions within a variety of 

companies and government agencies. 
25 

TABLE 5 

THIRD CIRCUIT TYPING SURVEY: 

VOLUME INFORMATION BY DOCUMENT CATEGORY 

Opinions 

Bench Memos 

Judgement 

Orders 

Correspondence 

Speeches 

Miscellaneous 

Total 

Lines Typed 

Number 

33,792 

14,778 

2,082 

20,196 

2,451 

16,911 

90,210 

% of All 

Lines 

37 

16 

2 

22 

3 

19 

100 

Documents Typed 

Number Avg. No. % of All 

Pages Documents 

Typed 

156 11.8 18 

95 5.3 11 

41 3.9 5 

393 2.9 44 

13 7.9 1 

188 4.0 21 

886 5.1 100 
26 

Per curiam or signed opinions go through numerous revisions 

in most offices. A per curiam opinion normally requires two to 

three revisions, and a signed opinion frequently needs five to 

six drafts--nine or ten revisions are not unusual. As might be 

anticipated, earlier drafts involve more substantative changes 

while final revisions normally entail correcting typographical . errors or making minor refinements in writing style or wording. 

Revision Typing 

Revisions are a very productive application for word 

processing technology. Opinion preparation requires substantial 

rewriting and typing revisions (table 6) • Although the 

preparation of speeches often requires retyping, speeches 

constitute only 3 percent of the typing workload. 

Typing opinions accounted for 37 percent of all lines typed 

(Table 5,) but an enormous 76 percent of all revision work (lines 

retyped) and 48 percent of all documents retyped (calculated from 

tables 5 and 6). 

Similarly, revision typing accounted for 70 percent of all 

opinions typed and a substantial 57 percent of all lines typ~d 

for opinions. The difference in these two percentages should be 

anticipated. More lines are typed in the initial drafts, since 

the entire opinion must be keyboarded into the word processor. 

Consequently, 29 percent of first-draft opinions accounted for 43 

percent of all lines typed for opinions. 

Revision typing in the Third Circuit accounted for 30 percent 

of all lines typed and 26 percent of all documents typed. Compared to an all-industry average of 16 percent reported by the 

Smith and Traux surveys, the circuit court has moderate amounts 

of revision typing. Law firms and corporate legal offices, 

however, report considerably higher revision typing figures of 57 

percent and 49 percent respectively. Differences in work styles 

and revision practices again demonstrate the considerable 

variations among the judges (table 7). 

Word processing equipment permits efficient revisions and 

avoids retyping the entire original text when only portions of 
TABLE 6 

THIRD CIRCUIT TYPING SURVEY: 

REVISION TYPING BY DOCUMENT CATEGORY 

Revision Typing as a % Revision Typing as a % 

of all Lines Typed of all Documents Typed 

Document 

Category None Light Heavy None Light Heavy 

Opinions 43 13 44 29 35 35 

IV 

-...J 

Bench Memos 88 12 0 93 7 0 

Judgement Orders 83 6 1 71 27 2 

Correspondence 89 10 1 84 14 2 

Speeches 33 51 17 46 31 23 

Miscellaneous 88 6 7 84 13 3 

Weighted Average 70 12 18 74 17 9 
TABLE 7 

THIRD CIRCUIT TYPING SURVEY: 

REVISION TYPING BY AUTHOR 

Revision Typing as % Revision Typing as % 

of All Lines Typ~d of All Documents Typed 

----------------------- ------------------------ Office 

Location None Light Heavy None Light Heavy 

Judge A 30 26 44 61 22 17 tv 

Judge B 65 13 21 81 13 6 ex> 

Judge C 52 27 22 58 22 19 

Judge D 61 36 2 80 15 5 

Judge E 82 16 1 77 19 4 

Judge B' 65 17 18 90 7 3 

Judge G 58 4 38 65 6 29 

Judge H 100 0 0 100 0 0 

Judge I 59 24 16 85 11 4 

Judge J 83 15 2 73 22 5 

Circuit Exec. 34 36 30 55 31 14 

Other Judges 82 18 0 82 18 

Law Clerks (ALL) 30 41 29 43 37 20 " 

Weighted Average 70 12 18 74 17 9 

!'?": 

- , ... 
29 

the text need correction. All the figures sUbstantiate that 

heavy revision typing is associated with opinions and to some 

extent with other documents, and that opinion typing turnaround 

can be significantly reduced by using word processing equipment 

rather than standard electric typewriters. 

Typing Priorities 

There are no formal typing priorities in the Third Circuit. 

However, most judges have prescribed guidelines that establish 

the preparation of opinions as the highest priority, followed by 

judgment orders and the judge's correspondence. Bench memoranda 

and speeches have the lowest priority. 

Judges' materials normally have priority over law clerk 

requests. In many offices, secretaries provide only a modest 

amount of typing support to the law clerks~ frequently, clerks 

are required to type their own documents as a condition of 

employment. 

Opinion typing is often designated "rush" priority. Although 

defining rush work is subjective, most court personnel understand 

"rush" as refering to a document that must be prepared as soon 

and as rapidly as possible. Word processing technology permits 

faster keyboarding, editing, and printing of documents than 

standard electric typewriters. 

In the Third Circuit rush typing represents 31 percent of all 

lines typed and 22 percent of all documents prepared (tables 8 

and 9). The Smith and Traux typing surveys report 20 percent 

rush typing for all industries and only 3 percent rush typing in 

corporate legal departments. Once again, comparing Third Circuit 

workload to general industry and legal practices shows that the 

Third Circuit secretaries are under greater time pressures to 

produce documents than are secretaries in ITIos-torganizations. 

Opinion typing constitutes the largest proportion of all rush 

demands with 44 percent of all lines typed. Since fewer changes 

are made in the last few drafts of an opinion, the finding that 

the percentage of rush lines for opinions was less than the 

percentage of rush documents indicates that final draft opinions 
30 

TABLE 8 

THIRD CIRCUIT TYPING SURVEY: 

RUSH TYPING BY DOCUMENT 

Document Type Rush Typing as Rush Typing as 

% of All % of All 

Lines Typed Documents Typed 

Opinions 44 52 

Bench Memos 18 13 

Judgement Orders 16 27 

Correspondence 28 14 

Speeches 11 23 

Miscellaneous 25 18 

Average 

for the Circuit 31 22 
31 

TABLE 9 

THIRD CIRCUIT TYPING SURVEY: 

RUSH TYPING BY AUTHOR 

Rush 'ryping Rush Typing 

as % of All as % of All 

Author Lines Typed Documents Typed 

Judge A 14 4 

Judge B 36 39 

Judge C 48 53 

Judge D 11 3 

Judge E 46 31 

Judge F 6 3 

Judge G 0 0 

Judge H 19 33 

Judge I 62 21 

Judge J 34 27 

Circuit Exec. 33 15 

Other Judges 42 29 

Law Clerks 56 61 

Average 30 22 
32 

are more likely to be completed quickly than initial drafts of an 

opinion. 

Improvements in Typing Productivity 

A Third Circuit secretary typically produces at least twice 

the typing output of corporate legal secretaries. The legal and 

industry productivity figures cited in this report were usually 

based on typing done on standard electric typewriters. Since 60 

percent of Third Circuit typing during the survey period was 

ptepared on word processors, the high productivity is attributable to word processing technology. 

Manufacturers make various claims that word processing 

equipment can increase productivity four- to tenfold compared to 

standard typewriters. Improvements in productivity depend on the 

type of documents prepared. A recent court study classifies 

court documents according to four groups: manuscripts (opinions 

and speeches), standard forms and letters (judgment orders), 

standardized complaints and jury instructions, and correspondence 

and memos.1 3 The two largest typing requirements in circuit 

courts are for opinions and correspondence. The report estimated 

it is more realis~ic to expect word processing to increase 

productivity by 200 to 300 percent for documents typically 

produced by an appellate court. 14 

Time Savings 

It is evident that without word processing, Third Circuit 

secretaries would spend substantially more time retyping 

documents, in addition to their present burdensome typing load. 

No typing surveys had been previously completed in any appellate 

court, so their is no precise data on production times without 

word processing equipment. However, a projected time savings can 

13. National Center for State Courts, Business Equipment and the 

Courts: Guide for Court Managers (1977), pp.14-l6. 

14. Id. at 15-16. 

/ 
I 

~. 

33 

be estimated from the available productivity and workload 

information. 

Since approximately 60 percent of all Third Circuit typing is 

handled on word processors, about 60 percent of typing time is 

spent on these machines. Secretaries average 2.1 hours per day 

typing; therefore, 1.25 hours (2.1 x .6) per day are needed on 

the word processors. Given the high proportion of revision and 

rush typing--about one-third of all typing--and the productivity 

gains (300 percent), circuit secretaries would require an 

estimated 3.75 hours per day using electric typewriters instead 

of word processors. Adding the .84 hours per day for typing 

presently completed on standard typewriters, a total of 4.6 hours 

per day (56 percent of the work day) would be required without 

word processing. Word processing equipment has permitted secretariesto handle their typing work in about half the time--2.1 

hours with word processing compared to 4.6 hours without word 

processing. 

Opinion typing on the word processor is associated with a 

high proportion of revisions (59 percent of typed lines and 76 

percent of documents). Obviously, a substantial amount of the 

time saved (estimated at 50 to 80 percent) is associated with 

opinion preparation. 
IV. MAIL SERVICE AND THE NEED FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Description of Electronic Mail 

There is no simple way to describe the field of electronic 

mail services or equipment. Services can comprise the electronic 

transmission of typed text only, graphics only, pictorial 

reproductions of original documents, computer information, or 

single- or multi-page documents. Equipment can include facsimile 

devices, word processing machines, telephones, or large-scale 

computers. 

In this study, electronic mail service was limited to the 

transmission of typed single- or multi-page text. Each Third 

Circuit judge and administrative office was given a word processing machine containing communication features capable of 

storing, transmitting, and receiving typed text over regular 

telephone lines and receivers. The communications feature permit 

a judge to conveniently send any document already prepared and 

stored on the word processing machine. 

The Third Circuit electronic mail system is unique. Besides 

being the first court to implement an electronic mail exchange 

system, the court is among the few word processor users anywhere 

in the United States to transmit electronically lengthy narrative 

documents on a regular basis by means of a centralized "electronic post office" system. 

Each user's word processor was connected to a standard dial 

telephone and communications modem. A modem is an electronic box 

that converts digital coded information in a word processor or 

computer to standard audio frequencies for transmission over 

regular voice-grade telephone lines to another computer or word 

processor. In the earlier stages of the project, a device with a 

slower transmission speed (300 baud rate acoustic couplers) was 

installed, but all users have now received higher speed (1,200 

34 
35 

baud rate AT&T Model 2l2A Dataphone modems) devices. These 

devices transmit information four times faster than the original 

equipment. 

When judges or administrators want to use the centralized 

electronic mail system, they dial a Washington, D.C. telephone 

number that connects them to a Federal JUdicial Center's Courtran 

II computer. After providing appropriate passwords and codes to 

satisfy security procedures, the user has access to the electronic mail system. Each Third Circuit court office can use the 

electronic mail service anytime during the week (8:00 A.M. to 

6:30 P.M.); hours can be extended by request. 

One communications approach--heavily promoted by word 

processing and facsimile vendors--is to permit each user to 

transmit directly to another word processing machine, circumventing a central computer. The normal distribution of documents 

among Third Circuit offices makes such a direct transmission 

approach impractical. A document is sent simultaneously to 

several offices whether by u.s. postal or electronic mail 

service. If a direct transmission approach Were adopted, the 

sender would have to separately contact each recipient, carefully 

coordinate activities with each recipient--to avoid disrupting 

work in progress on some recipient's word processor--and substantially increase transmission time. It takes the same amount of 

time to send the document to a centralized Courtran II computer 

as to send to just one word processor using the direct approach. 

The Third Circuit judges can, if they want to, adopt a 

direct transmission approach with their existing word processors. 

Presently, an average of four judges or administrators receive 

each document distributed (table. 10), a fact that strongly 

supports the establishment of the centralized electronic mail 

system adopted by the Third Circuit. 

The electronic mail system stored on the Courtran II 

computer permits easy performance of several functions according 

to any priority chosen. The computer system allows each judge or 

administrator to 
Week of 

6/5- 9 

6/12 - 16 

6/19 - 23 

6/25 - 30 

7/3 - 7 

7/10 - 14 

7/17 - 21 

7/24 - 28 

7/31 - 8/4 

8/7 - 11 

8/14 - 18 

8/21 - 25 

8/28 - 9/1 

9/4 - 8 

9/11 - 15 

9/18 - 22 

9/25 - 29 

10/2 - 6 

10/9 - 13 

10/16 - 20 a 

10/23 - 27 

10/30 - 11/3 

11/5 - 10 

11/13 - 17 

11/20 - 24 

Total 

36 

TABLE 10 

THIRD CIRCUIT ELECTRONIC MAIL SURVEY: 

TRANSMISSIONS SENT AND RECEIVED 

Transmissions Transmissions 

Sent Received 

6 9 

25 91 

19 64 

21 92 

26 95 

45 211 

42 157 

22 70 

36 170 

35 140 

25 88 

22 93 

33 147 

30 167 

34 146 

20 96 

26 109 

15 98 

23 92 

40 163 

13 22 

28 95 

31 123 

37 112 

29 132 

683(20%) 2,782(80%) 

Total Transmission 

ReI iab il i ty 

15 55% 

116 78% 

83 78% 

113 76% 

121 89% 

256 90% 

199 88% 

92 83% 

206 84% 

175 94% 

113 78% 

115 91% 

180 89% 

197 91% 

180 90% 

116 88% 

135 85% 

113 81% 

115 90% 

203 91% 

35 93% 

123 86% 

154 87% 

149 91% 

161 91% 

3,465(100%) 

a Telecommunications (electronic mail) speed was increased from 

300 to 1,200 baud rate. 
37 

send document(s): transmit one or more documents 

of any length to the computer for distribution to 

one or more designated recipients. Third Circuit 

users who are not designated recipients do not have 

access to the document. 

receive document(s): transmit one or more 

documents of any length from the computer to 

recipient's word processing machine. 

cancel document(s): cancel sending of any document 

or a particular receipt of a document that has not 

yet been picked up by the recipient(s). 

verify status of document{s) sent: at any time 

verify-which documents sent have or have not been 

received by each recipient. 

verify status of pending document(s) to be 

received: determine which documents are awaiting 

electronic tranmission pick-up to user's word 

processor. Inquiry log lists the name of document, 

name of sender, date sent, approximate document 

size, and amount of time to transmit the document. 

record history of- document (s): retain an archival 

listing of all documents sent and received, 

including the name of the document, date sent and 

received, and the names of parties sending or 

receiving each document. 

~ransmission Reliability 

Electronic mail technology, in general and particularly the 

unique computer configuration and procedures developed for the 

Third Circuit court, are still in the embryonic stage of 

development. 

An electronic mail tran~mission failure, called an abort, is 

comparable to losing a connection during a telephone conversation. Unfortunately, when such a failure occurs r the entire 

document must be transmitted again. Failures cause irritating 

interruptions, require tasks to be performed again, and result in 

lost personnel time. During peak typing production and under 

severe time pressures, electronic mail failures become un-

Transmission 

Time of 

Document 

Received 

(Minutes) 

1-5 

6-10 

11-15 

16-20 

21 + 

Total 

39 

TABLE 11 

THIRD CIRCUIT ELECTRONIC MAIL SURVEY: 

FREQUENCY OF TRANSMISSION DISRUPTIONS 

300 Baud a 

(July-Sept. 1978) 

1200 Baudb 

(Mid-Oct. to Mid-Nov.) 

Number of Number of Number of 

Documents Transmission Documents 

Disruptions 

1172 

160 

76 

87 

185 

1,6.80 

71 (6%) 

14 (9%) 

25 (33%) 

35 (40%) 

67 (37%) 

212 (13%) 

493 

56 

10 

15 

574 

Number of 

Transmission 

Disruptions 

34 (7%) 

22 (39%) 

4 (40%) 

8 (53%) 

o 

68 (12%) 

a At 300 baud rate, it takes approximately 100 seconds to 

transmit one legal-size page. 

b At 1,200 baud rate, it takes approximately 25 seconds to 

transmit one legal-size page. 
40 

Over a six-month period, several thousand documents and more 

than ten thousand pages of draft opinions, related memoranda, and 

correspondence were exchanged el~ctronically (table 10), usage 

rates varied, and an extensive number of short and longer 

documents were transmitted (table 12). 

Although many documents consisted of two- or three-page 

memos, or excerpts from draft opinions, a substantial number of 

documents (20 percent) exceeded ten pages, and some draft 

opinions contained more than sixty pages. 

Each judge uses the electronic mail service several times a 

day (a few use it twice a day; most offices use it four or fives 

times daily) to send, receive, and make status inquiries through 

his electronic mailbox. During a typical week, a judge sends 

three or four documents, receives twelve to fifteen documents, 

and requires two hours of electronic mail time, including 

inquiries. 

The opinion circulation survey (table 13 and 14) shows 

varying patterns of U.S. postal service delivery schedules among 

Third Circuit users. Ideal conditions exist for postal service 

in several Third Circuit cities: judges' chambers in Camden, 

Newark, and Pittsburgh are located at each city's main post 

office. The average delivery time for mailed opinions is 

slightly under two days (38.6 hours), but delivery times vary 

depending upon distance and destination. Same day delivery is 

nonexistent; one-day delivery is provided less than half the time 

(45 percent). Delivery within two days is normally anticipated, 

but almost 10 percent of mailings take more than two working days 

(table 13). 

Using electronic mail sharply reduces the delivery time 

between all Third Circuit offices. Compared to an average two 

days for postal delivery, electronic mail averages less than half 

a day (table 15). The speed of electronic mail is not related to 

distance or destination (the average delivery time between any of 

the cities is either .3 or .4 days), but on the frequency and 

timeliness that a r~cipient inquires through his electronic 

mailbox. Each recipient decides when to take the mail from his 
Number 

of pages 

1-5 

6-10 

11-15 

16-20 

21 + 

Number 

of Pages 

1-5 

6-10 

11-15 

16-20 

21 + 

Totals 

41 

TABLE 12 

THIRD CIRCUIT 

OPINION CIRCULATION AND ELECTRONIC MAIL SURVEYS 

NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS EXCHANGED BY PAGE SIZE 

U.S. Postal Service Electronic 'Mail 

(May-June 1978) (July-October 1978) 

46 1,503 

47 196 

36 110 

9 90 

31 203 

NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS EXCHANGED BY PAGE SIZE 

AND BY MONTH DOCUMENTS RECEIVED 

ELECTRONIC MAIL TRANSMISSIONS 

July Aug. Sept. Oc.t. Totals 

435 346 386 336 1,503 (72%) 

41 64 54 37 196 (9%) 

43 18 24 25 110 ( 5%) 

25 32 29 4 90 ( 4%) 

58 80 45 20 203 (10%) 

602 540 538 422 2,102 (100%) 
42 

TABLE 13 

OPINION CIRCULATION AND ELECTONIC MAIL SURVEYS: 

COMPARATIVE DELIVERY TIMES FOR 

POSTAL SERVICE AND ELECTRONIC MAIL (EM) 

Postal Service EM Et-t 

May,1978 May,1978 Sept,1978 

-------------------------------------------------- Hours 

For NO. % 

Deliverya 

1 

3 

6 1 1 

24 35 45 

48 35 45 

72 5 7 

96 + 1 1 

Delivery Postal Service 

May 1978 

Same Day (Within 

Same Working Day) 1% 

One-Day (By Next 

Working Day) 46% 

Two-Days (Within 

Two Working Days) 91% 

Three-Days 99% 

Avg. No. of Hours 38.6 

EM 

May 1978 

45% 

81% 

95% 

100% 

19.9 

NO. 

l~ 

8 

3 

1 

" 

a Opinion Circulation survey in May 1978 did not 

mail deliveries under six hours. 

% NO. % 

204 

1113 

45 39 

36 146 

14 3 

5 13 

0 0 

EM 

Sept. 1978 

71% 

99% 

100% 

100% 

8.9 

tabulate 

41 

22 

8 

29 

.5 

13 

0 

electronic 
43 

TABLE 14 

THIRD CIRCUIT OPINION CIRCULATION SURVEY: 

OPINIONS SENT AND RECEIVED 

Total 

Opinions Opinions Opinions 

Date Sent Received Exchanged 

Mon. 5/15 8 6 14 

5/16 5 7 12 

5/13 13 9 22 

5/18 1 14 15 

5/19 0 32 32 

5/22 2 9 11 

5/23 10 4 14 

5/24 0 17 17 

5/25 2 8 10 

5/26 9 1 14 

5/30 7 25 32 

5/31 3 8 11 

6/1 1 9 10 

6/2 4 12 16 

6;5 0 6 6 

TOTAL 65 171 236 
TABLE 15 

OPINION CIRCULATION AND ELECTRONIC MAIL SURVEYS: 

AVERAGE DELIVERY TIME EXCHANGED 

BY U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND ELECTRONIC MAIL 

pitts. W.Barre Newark Camden Phi1a. Wilm. ------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ----- Average 

Location Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg. # Avg. #b 

Pittsburgh 

Postal 1.5 (2) 1.8 (5 ) 2.2 (15 ) 1.7 (6 ) 1.8 (4 ) 2.0 (1) 2.0 (33 ) 

EM 0.3 (9) c: ~ r,1 • .j (14 ) 0.4 (50) 0.4 (14 ) 0.5 (69) 0.3 (34) 0.4 (190) 

Wilkes-Barre 

Postal 1.8 (5) ------- 1.5 (9) 1.8 (4) 1.0 (2 ) 2.0 (1) 1.6 (21) ~ 

~ 

EM 0.3 (14) 0.2 (21) 0.3 (7) 0.4 (31) 0.4 (21) 0.3 (94) 

Newark 

Postal 2.2 (IS ) 1.5 (9 ) 1.0 (l)b 1.4 (14 ) 1.5 (2 ) 1.1 (8) 1.6 ( 49) 

EM 0.4 (50) 0.2 (21) 0.1 (13) 0.4 (21) 0.3 (66) 0.4 (39 ) 0.3 (210) 

Camden 

Postal 1.7 (6j 1.8 (4) 1.4 (14 ) 1.3 (3) 1.5 (27 ) 

EM 0.4 (14) 0.3 (7) 0.4 (21) 0.4 (24) 0.6 (14) 0.4 (80) 

Philadelphia 

Postal 1.8 (4) 1.0 (2) 1.5 (2) (0) (0 ) (0) 1.5 (8) 

EM 0.5 (69) 0.4 (31) 0.3 (66) 0.4 (24) 0.1 (4 ) 0.3 (60) 0.4 (254 ) 

Wilmington 

Postal 2.0 (1) 2.0 (1) 1.1 (8 ) 1.3 (3 ) (0)a 1.3 (13) 

EM 0.3 (34) 0.4 (21) 0.4 (39) 0.6 (14) 0.3 (60) 0.4 (168) 
Note: 

a 

b 

45 

FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 15 

All times are listed in fractions of 24-hour days. 

Weekends were not included in computing delivery times. 

The table is designed like a highway mileage chart. The 

figures in the two diagonal portions of the table are 

identical. 

Several opinions were hand carried between offices. 

Overall average delivery time was 1.6 days for postal 

service and 0.4 days for electronic mail. 
KEY 

I 

I 

I 

PS 1.8 

EM .3 

I 

I 

I 

/ /' 

"-

"-

46 

TABLE 16 

SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF 

AVERAGE DELIVERY TIME BETWEEN 

POSTAL SERVICE AND ELECTRONIC MAIL 

AMONG THIRD CIRCUIT LOCATIONS 

- - PS = 1.5 - - -j NEWARK I 

EM = . 2 / 1/ \ "" \ \ "" /' II 

PS 1.8 PS 2.2 \ I / \ EM .3 EM .4 

\ " .,/ 

\ \ " .,/ I I 

PS 2.0 /' "'" I PS 1.1 PS 1.4 

EM .4 \ ,/ " I EM .4 EM .4 

\ \/ "" / \ 

I"", \ \ ,/ 

PM 1.0 PM 1. 5 I \ / \ EM .4 EM .3 

/' "'" \ / / ""- "",\ \ / \ - PS 1. 8 - \ -PS N/A-~~~EN I 

EM .5 EM .4 

\ / / 

'" \ / ,,/ 

PS 2.0 \ PS N/A PS 1.3 

EM .3 EM .3 / EM .6 

"- / 

'" \ / / 

" / 

PS: average delivery time in days using postal service 

EM: average delivery time in days using electronic mail 

N/A: no documents reported during the typing survey between 

locations 
47 

electronic mailbox. If a recipient were to check his electronic 

mailbox each hour rather than every three hours--the present 

inquiry rate for the Third Circuit--the delivery time would 

decrease further. 

Electronic mail provides the most benefit in delivery service 

to more distant (Pittsburgh) or remote (Wilkes-Barre) localities, 

but all localities show major time savings from 60 percent to 85 

percent (table 15). 

Electronic mail almost insured the receipt of documents 

within one work day, and nearly 75 percent of documents are 

received in the same work day (Table 13). Urgent or highpriority documents have been received and responses returned 

within a few minutes. Overall, electronic mail has r~duced 

delivery time within the Third Circuit by 75 percent. 

Using the average delivery rates for U.S. postal and electronic mail services, adoption of the electronic mail system 

would save an estimated four and quarter days on each opinion. 

This calculation assumes that the author of an opinion sends one 

or two drafts to two panel members; the panel-approved opinion is 

distributed once to the entire court for review; and on average 

each electrontc mailing is at least one day faster. The actual 

time saved on a specific opinion depends on the number of times a 

draft is distributed, whether a concurring or dissenting opinion 

is also prepared, and the time each judge takes to respond to the 

draft. 

Costs of Electronic Mail 

Compared to U.S. postal service, electronic mail requires 

additional equipment and technical resources, and correspondingly, additional expenditures. Whether electronic mail is 

presently competitively priced when compared with U.S. postal 

service was not a crucial concern for this study. But how 

expensive would electronic mail be if regularly and more heavily 

used? 

There are both fixed and variable expenditures related to 

elec~ronic mail. The principal fixed costs for each Third 
48 

Circuit electronic mail recipient are: 

Word process?r communication features 

Telephone 

Modem (1,200 baud) 

The variable costs are 

Telephone transmission time (GSA rate) 

. 15 Courtran II computer connect tlme 

$1,500 (one-time 

charge) 

10/month 

40/month 

12/hour 

3/hour 

Annual cost projections for the Third Circuit would be: 

Fixed costs are 

Word Processor communication 

feature 

(Capital expenditure prorated over 5 years: $1,500 

x 13 machines/5 years) 

Telephones and modems 

(13 offices-$50/mo. x 13 

machines) 

Variable costs are 

Telephone transmission time 

($12/hr. x 52 weeks x 25 hrs./wk) 

Courtran II Computer connect time 

($3/hr. x 25 hrs./week x 

52 weeks) 

$ 3,900 

7,800 

15,600 

3,900 

$31,200 

15. Electronic mail requires little computer usage time, and 

there would be no additional computer usage costs to federal 

courts using electronic mail through the Courtran II computers. 

( 
49 

These projections make the following assumptions, based on 

estimated Third Circuit usage during the evaluation: 

separate telephone and modern in each office 

1200 baud rate dial-up modems used 

federal long-distance telephone service (FTS) charged at GSA 

data transmission rates 

90 percent transmission reliability rate 

600 documents received per month 

25 hours per week of computer connect time 

4-5 inquiries per day per user 

7-8 pages per document. 

These cost estimates suggest that at present usage rates, a 

typical seVen page document sent by electronic ~ail to a specific 

recipient would cost approximately $4.~4 ($32,000 total cost per 

year divided by 7,200 documents per year). The same seven-page 

document would cost $0.28 by first class mail. Private express 

delivery services charge $5.00 or more for one-day delivery, and 

standard facsimile devices (presently used in several federal 

courts, including the Third Circuit) would cost $10.10 per 

document, assuming that 50,000 pages are transmitted yearly 

(however at the Third Circuit's present usage rate of facsimile 

transmissions, the cost is $25.00 to $30.00 per page). 

'If electronic mail were permanently installed with word 

processing equipment, costs would decrease as volume increased. 

Since the court has generally restricted electronic mail 

distribution primarily to draft opinions and related correspondence, the court's usage rate could substantially increase. 

Table 17 projects the Third Circuit's total electronic mail 

costs and costs per document at different levels of usage and by 

size of document. 
TABLE 17 

THIRD CIRCUIT ELECTRONIC MAIL SURVEY: 

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

Number of Cost Per Document Cost per Document 

Documents (7-8 page) (1-2 page) 

(Annual) Fixed Variables Total Fixed Variable Total Total 

Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costsa 

5,000 $11,700 $15,950 $27,650 $2.34 $3.19 '$5.53 $1. 84 

7,200 11,700 19,500 31,200 1. 62 2.71 4.33 1. 44 U1 

0 

10,000 11,700 24,700 36,400 ·1.17 3.47 3.64 1. 21 

15,000 11,700 33,450 45,150 0.78 2.23 3.01 1000 

20,000 11,700 42,200 53,900 0.59 2.11 2.70 0.90 

25,000 11,700 51,000 62,700 0.47 2.04 2.51 0.84 

a Cost for a short (1-2 page) document is calculated by dividing average (7-8 page) 

document cost by three • 

. ,::: 

~~- --
V. APPELLATE CASE PROCESSING 

An important measure of appellate court efficiency is the 

speed with which a typical appeal is processed. The extent to 

which word processing and electronic mail expedite the processing 

of an appeal is a crucial measure of the potential value of these 

technologies for an appellate court. An appeal has two principal 

stages: the perfection of the appeal (controlled by the parties 

involved) and the court's deliberation process. 

Nearly all appellate courts have established rules and 

procedures governing the litigants' perfection of the appeal. 

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which is recognized as 

an open, innovative appellate court, was the first appellate 

court to publish its internal rules. 16 The publication covers 

the essential processes and procedures followed by this court 

from the distribution of the litigants' briefs to the final 

termination of the appeal. 

(For those unfamiliar with the Third Circuit procedures, 

particularly those concerning the preparation, review, and 

pUblication of written opinions, see appendix B). 

Stages Analyzed in Appellate Case Processing 

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (A.O.) 

publishes various statistics on each circuit court's workload and 

median case processing time. These statistics are inadequate for 

this study because the A.O. does not provide data on separate 

appeals requiring per curiam or signed opinions only, the amount 

of time opinion writers take to prepare opinions, or the amount 

of time the court takes to review opinions. 

A separate survey needed to be completed in order to compare 

case processing time before and after installing the word 

16. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 

Internal Operating Procedures (1974). 

51 
52 

processing and electronic mail equipment. The methods used for 

case selection and sampling are discussed in chapter two of this 

report. The four dates of key appellate events on each case 

(filing of appeal, formal submission on the merits, distribution 

of draft opinion to panel, and rendering of decision) permitted 

the tabulation of several crucial time intervals: 

1. Filing of appeal to filing of opinion by court (column A 

in tables 19 through 23): the total number of days for 

both the perfection of the appeal and deliberation by the 

court. This time interval measures how long it takes to 

process an appeal (column A equals columns B plus C) 

2. Filing of appeal to formal submission on the merits 

(column B): the number of days for the perfection of the 

appeal. Neither of the two technological innovations has 

any impact on this appellate stage, and there should not 

be any major differences between the pre-project versus 

project cases 

3. Formal submission on the merits to rendering the court's 

written opinion (column C): the number of days for the 

court to prepare and release a reasoned opinion. This 

time interval measures the deliberation stage, and both 

technologies can affect this stage. (column C equals 

columns D plus E) 

4. Formal submission on the merits to opinion draft 

distribution to the panel (column D): the number of days 

the opinion writer takes to prepare his draft opinion. 

Word processing technology has its greatest impact during 

the opinion preparation stage, but electronic mail has no 

affect at this stage 

5. Opinion draft distribution to the panel to rendering the 

court's written opinion (column E): the number of days 

for circulation to the panel and for the entire court to 

review and comment on the decision (unnecessary for per 

curiam opinions) and send the opinion to the clerk of the 

court. Electronic mail has its impact on this stage. 

Description of Opinions 

In the years surveyed (1976 to 1978), criminal appeals 

constituted approximately 20 percent of written opinions (table 

18). Although a substantial number of written opinions were per 

curiam (25 percent), the court has increased its preference for 

signing opinions from 67 percent to 83 percent. Within the Third 
53 

TABLE 18 

WORD PROCESSING AND ELECTRONIC MAIL PROJECT: 

DISTRIBUTION OF WRITTEN OPINIONS 

TYPE OF CASE 

Civil 

Criminal 

TYPE OF OPINION ** 

Signed 

Per Curiam 

CASE PRESENTATION 

Oral Argument 

Submitted (No Orals) 

COMPOSITION OF COURT ** 

Only Circuit Judges 

District Judge Sitting 

VOTE 

Pre-Project 

Cases 

208 (80%) 

52 (20%) 

174 (67%) 

86 (33%) 

224 (86%) 

36 (12%) 

160 (62%) 

100 (38%) 

Unanimous 

Concurring 

Dissenting 

Both (Concur 

207 

13 

35 

and Dissent) 5 

(80 %) 

( 5 %) 

( 14%) 

( 2 %) 

JUDGE 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

31 (12%) 

37 (14%) 

22 ( 9%) 

36 (14%) 

30 (12%) 

27 (11%) 

21 ( 8%) 

22 ( 9%) 

34 (13%) 

Project (WP-EM) 

Cases 

132 (84%) 

25 (16%) 

131 (83%) 

26 (17%) 

136 (87%) 

26 (17%) 

122 (78%) 

35 (22%) 

127 

10 

20 

o 

(81%) 

( 6%) 

( 13%) 

( 0%) 

16 (11%) 

20 (14%) 

13 ( 9%) 

16 (11%) 

22 (15%) 

17 (11%) 

17 (12%) 

8 ( 6%) 

17 (12%) 

Note: Judge J joined the circuit in late 1977 r and prepared 

eleven written opinions during 1978 that were included in this 

study. 

** Statistically significant change at .01 level 
54 

Circuit, nearly all written opinions are prepared by panels; and 

there was less reliance upon the temporary reassignment of 

district judges into appellate panels in 1978 (22 percent) than 

in the 1976 - 1977 period (38 percent). The preparation of 

written opinions is reasonably distributed over the entire couit. 

Each active appellate judge prepares from 9 to 15 percent 'of ~he 

written opinions. The voting pattern on decisions has remained 

stable in recent years; the court has voted unanimously in 80 

percent of written opinions, and dissenting opinions have been 

filed in 13 percent of the cases~ 

Pre-project Case Processing Time 

The time it took for the Third Circuit to deliberate and 

prepare a written opinion before the introduction of word 

processing was approximately one-fourth (84 days out of 331 days) 

the total appellate processing time. This ratio is consistent 

with previous findings in state courts where the perfection of 

the appeal consumes more than one-half to three-quarters of the 

entire appellate process.

17 The pre-project time taken by the 

Third Circuit to process appeals is about average among U.S. 

Courts of Appeals, but substantially less than in most state 

appellate courts. 

The opinion writer'S preparation of the draft oplnlon took 

two-thirds (59 out of 84 days) of the court's deliberation time, 

while panel review and circulation encompassed slightly less than 

a month. 

Although the federal speedy trial provisions enacted by 

Congress do not directly impose time constraInts on the appellate 

courts, criminal appeals were completed two months sooner than 

civil appeals; however, most of the time saved was in the 

perfection of the appeal (table 19). 

17. D. Meador, Appellate Courts: Staff and Pro~o~= in the 

Crisis of Volume (1974). 
55 

TABLE 19 

CASE PROCESSING TIME FOR 

PRE-PROJECT CASES (JULY 1976 TO DEC 1977) 

TOTAL 

TYPE OF CASE 

civil 

Criminal 

Number 

of 

Cases 

260 

208 

52 

TYPE OF OPINION 

Signed 174 

Per Curiam 86 

VOTE 

Unanimous 

Concurring 

Dissenting 

Both 

Judge 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

KEY 

207 

13 

35 

5 

31 

37 

22 

36 

30 

27 

21 

22 

J 34 

[AJ 

Filing 

to 

Decision 

331 

** 

342 

284 

* 

343 

306 

** 

313 

396 

379 

548 

339 

284 

346 

345 

310 

315 

373 

349 

343 

[B] 

Filing 

to 

List 

[C] 

List 

to 

Decision 

(Number of Days) 

[D] 

List 

to 

Draft 

247 84 59 

** 

257 

206 

244 

252 

239 

283 

262 

390 

268 

239 

234 

265 

227 

207 

269 

237 

271 

85 

78 

** 

99 

53 

** 

74 

113 

117 

158 

** 

71 

45 

112 

80 

84 

108 

104 

III 

73 

** 

61 

53 

** 

71 

35 

** 55 

78 

75 

100 

** 

50 

27 

79 

61 

56 

83 

76 

78 

52 

Filing: Filing of notice of appeal 

[E] 

Draft 

to 

Decision 

24 

24 

25 

** 

28 

18 

** 

20 

35 

43 

58 

21 

18 

33 

20 

28 

25 

28 

33 

21 

List: Listing for disposition on the merits (oral argument or 

submission) 

Draft: Draft opinion distributed to court panel for review 

Decision: Opinion filed with the Clerk of the Circuit 

** Statistically significant difference within category at the 

.01~ * statistically significant difference at the .05 level 
56 

The adoption of per curiam (memorandum) opinions has been 

extolled by advocates as a method to expedite the opinion writing 

process. 18 The Third Circuit drafting and review procedures 

regarding the issuance of per curiams work well. Per curiam 

opinions were produced twice as fast as signed opinions during 

the pre-project survey period. 

The efficacy of eliminating oral arguments is another 

appellate policy hotly debated among lawyers, jurists, and 

researchers. In the pre-project period, the Third Circuit 

reviewed approximately 15 percent of appeals submitted on the 

merits without oral arguments. The court prepared and released 

written opinions almost three weeks faster if only briefs and 

appropriate court documents were submitted to the panel. 

It was expected that the panel's vote might significantly 

affect the time the court took to deliberate and render an 

op~n~on. A concurring or dissenting opinion added approximately 

forty days to the preparation process. 

The largest pre-project time variation in the court's opinion 

preparation process was related to judge assignments. The most 

efficient opinion-writing judge prepared opinions two-and-a-half 

times faster than the slowest judge. The more efficient judges 

are also among the most productive judges in the circuit (table 

18) • 

The opinion writer's preparation of the draft opinion--not 

the time for the panel and the entire court to review the 

draft--accounted for the time differences among judges. 

Apparently, a judge's work style, work priorities, opinion 

preparation procedures within chamber, and utilization of law 

clerks and secretaries have a strong impact on processing time. 

18. P. Carrington, D. Meador & M. Rosenberg, Justice on Appeal 

(1977) • 
57 

Impact of Technology on Case Processing Time 

The implementation of word processing technology had a 

consistent and substantial influence on decreasing the amount of 

time for the Third Circuit took to prepare and render written 

opinions. The total processing time for an appeal requiring a 

written opinion was reduced substantially by approximately three 

weeks--a 6 percent reduction in total appeal time (table 20, 

column A). The Third Circuit's deliberation time was reduced by 

approximately eighteen days--a 21 percent reduction in~the time 

to draft opinions (table 20, column C). These time savings, ' 

occurred almost exclusively in the time opinion writers took to 

prepare drafts (table 20, column D). Only a miniscule savings in 

time was found for opinion dissemination and review by the entire 

bench (table 20, column E). As anticipated, there was no change 

in the average time litigants took to perfect appeals. 

These findings strongly support a program to provide permanent word processing technology for the Third Circuit, but the 

findings pertaining to electronic mail were less encouraging. 

Merely tabulating and examining total case statistics without any 

more refined analysis can be misleading. Moderate changes in the 

appeals (percentage of criminal appeals), appellate process 

(percentage of appeals without oral argument), or appellate procedures (percentage of signed opinions or panel voting patterns) 

might have totally or partially caused the time changes. To 

insure that these findings were valid, further statistical 

analysis was conducted. 

with a few exceptions, all major trends noted between the two 

sample groups (pre-project and project cases) are supported by 

analysis of various subcategories. Every major classification 

breakdown (by type of case, type of opinion, voting pattern, 

etc.) shows substantial reduction of the time to draft opinions 

after instituting word processing technology. For the bulk of 

the opinions normally prepared, improvements averaged two to 

three weeks, especially if the opinion was a civil appeal, a 

signed opinion, a unanimous opinion or an appeal decided with 

oral arguments. The court's total deliberation time was reduced 
58 

TABLE 20 

CASE PROCESSING TIME FOR 

PRE-PROJECT AND WORD PROCESSING ELECTRONIC-MAIL CASES 

TOTAL 

Pre 

WP-EM 

TYPE OF CASE 

Civil 

Pre 

WP-EM 

Criminal 

Pre 

WP-EM 

Number 

of 

Cases 

260 

157 

208 

132 

52 

25 

TYPE OF OPINION 

Signed 

Pre 

WP-EM 

Per Curiam 

Pre 

WP-EM 

VOTE 

Unanimous 

Pre 

WP-EM 

174 

132 

86 

25 

207 

127 

Dissent or Concurring 

Pre 40 

WP-EM 38 

[A] 

Filing 

to 

Decision 

* 

331 

312 

* 342 

319 

284 

275 

* 

343 

317 

306 

287 

313 

311 

** 384 

317 

[B] 

Filing 

to 

List 

[C] 

List 

to 

Decision 

[D] 

List 

to 

Draft 

(Number of Days) 

247 

246 

257 

252 

206 

209 

244 

242 

252 

262 

239 

250 

267 

229 

** 

84 

66 

85 

67 

78 

66 

** 

99 

74 

** 53 

25 

** 

74 

61 

** 116 

88 

** 

59 

44 

** 

61 

43 

53 

45 

** 

71 

50 

** 35 

12 

** 55 

43 

** 

75 

47 

[E] 

Draft 

to 

Decision 

24 

23 

24 

23 

25 

21 

28 

25 

* 18 

14 

20 

18 

41 

41 
ORAL ARGUMENT 

Pre 

WP-EM 

SUBMISSION 

Pre 

WP-EM 

PANEL 

Pre 

WP-EM 

KEY 

Number 

of 

Cases 

224 

136 

36 

21 

247 

152 

59 

TABLE 20 (CONTINUED) 

[A] 

Filing 

to 

Decision 

331 

315 

333 

295 

325 

311 

[B) 

Fil ing 

to 

List 

242 

246 

268 

244 

242 

244 

[C) 

List 

to 

Decision 

** 87 

69 

65 

51 

** 81 

66 

Filing: Filing of the notice of appeal 

[D) 

List 

to 

Draft 

** 62 

46 

* 

44 

26 

** 58 

44 

[E] 

Draft 

to 

Decision 

25 

22 

21 

25 

23 

23 

List: Listing for disposition on the merits (oral argument or 

submission) 

Draft: Draft opinion distributed to court panel for review 

Decision: Opinion filed with the Clerk of the Court 

** Statistically significant difference at the .01 level * Statistically significant difference at the .05 level 
60 

dramatically--20 to 30 percent. A detailed analysis of these 

sub-categories follows. 

Type of case. Although only civil cases showed a statistically significant improvement in the time required to process 

opinions, there were substantial decreases in the preparation 

time for both civil and criminal appeals, civil cases averaging 

eighteen days and criminal cases eight days •. Since criminal 

appeals might have received higher typing priorities in some 

chambers before word processing was introduced, there was less 

potential for word processing to effect time reductions in 

preparing criminal opinions. As a result of the technology, 

civil and criminal opinions are prepared by the court in about 

the same amount of time (table 21), although the time litigants 

take to perfect the appeal still differs substantially. 

Apparently, the improved production and productivity provided by 

word processing eliminates the need for establishing typing 

priorities, at least for written opinions. Electronic mail may 

have some impact on the processing of criminal cases which show a 

four-day decline in opinion review time (table 20). 

One might conjecture that criminal appeals were processed 

faster because per curiam opinions were prepared more frequently; 

however, a statistical analysis did not verify this hypothesis--a 

per curiam opinion is about as likely in a civil as in a criminal 

appeal. 

Type of Opinion. Word processing technology is a valuable 

tool for preparing either lengthy, detailed signed opinions or 

the shorter, concise per curiam opinions. In either case, opinion 

preparation time was reduced by over three weeks (table 20). 

The electronic mail capability appears to significantly 

improve--by four days--the processing of per curiam opinions. 

Panel members give high priority to respon~ing to all draft 

opinions, but per curiam opinions do not normally require 

circulation among the entire court. The Third Circuit's Internal 

Operating Procedures (IOP) may act as disincentives, particularly 

regarding signed opinions, thereby reducing the potential impact 

of electronic mail. The present rules permit a reviewing judge to 
61 

TABLE 21 

CASE PROCESSING TIME FOR 

PROJECT CASES (APRIL 1978 TO NOV. 1978) 

Number 

of 

Cases 

[A] 

Filing 

to 

Decision 

[B] 

Filing 

to 

List 

[C] 

List 

to 

Decision 

[D] 

List 

to 

Draft 

(Number of days) 

TOTAL 

TYPE OF CASE 

Civil 

Criminal 

TYPE OF OPINION 

157 

132 

25 

Signed 132 

Per Curiam 25 

VOTE 

Unanimous 

Concurring 

Dissenting 

Judge 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

KEY 

127 

10 

20 

16 

20 

13 

16 

22 

17 

17 

8 

17 

11 

312 

319 

275 

317 

287 

311 

.322 

315 

334 

271 

308 

290 

316 

344 

307 

337 

308 

327 

Filing: Filing of notice of appeal 

246 

252 

209 

242 

262 

250 

250 

219 

270 

226 

247 

228 

235 

255 

233 

269 

271 

240 

66 

67 

66 

** 

74 

25 

61 

72 

96 

** 

64 

45 

61 

62 

80 

89 

74 

69 

38 

87 

List: Listing for Disposition on the merits 

44 

43 

45 

** 

50 

12 

43 

43 

49 

** 

38 

23 

38 

34 

58 

67 

54 

50 

18 

62 

[E] 

Draft 

to 

Decision 

23 

23 

21 

** 

25 

1.1 

** 

18 

30 

48 

26 

22 

23 

29 

23 

22 

20 

19 

19 

25 

Draft: Draft opinion distributed to court panel for review 

Decision: Opinion filed with the Clerk of the Court 

** Statistically significant difference at .01 
62 

wait eight days without responding to the opinion writer, ri~ther 

than using electronic mail to send faster "no comment" responses'. 

If electronic mail is retained permanently, it is anticipated 

that the Third Circuit will reduce its time limit for review of 

signed opinions by four to five days. 

Even with the introduction of both technologies, per curiam 

opinions are still produced much faster than signed opinions 

(table 21). The case processing time between a per curiam and 

signed opinion remained stable (fifty-day difference) across the 

pre-project and project cases. 

Voting Pattern. Again, word processing significantly reduces 

the opinion preparation time for either unanimous opinions or 

dissenting or concurring opinions. The time savings are more 

dramatic for dissenting and concurring opinions (table 20). 

Use of Oral Argument. Word processing technology helped lower 

the preparation time for both orally argued and submitted 

appeals, but the improvements were more substantial for argued 

appeals. 

Opinion Wr iter. ~vord process ing technology consistently 

reduces draft processing time for nearly all judges. The time 

savings varied by judge (tables 22 and 23), with six judges 

showing statistically significant improvements and two other 

judges showing substantial improvements. For several judges the 

time savings were almost one month, for others, a few weeks. 

These figures indicate that word processing technology substantially contributed to the time savings for nearly every judge in 

the Third Circuit. 

Electronic mail seemed to have a modest effect for most 

judges. There was a small but consistent decrease in the review 

and circulation time for signed opinions for seven of the nine 

judges (table 23). 

Word processing and electronic mail helped judges--whether 

they were originally high or low in efficiency (number of days to 

complete opinions) or productivity (number of written opinions 

produced). However, there is still a wide divergence between the 

fastest opinion writers, whose signed opinions are completed in 
63 

TABLE 22 

CASE PROCESSING TIME FOR 

PRE-PROJECT AND PROJECT CASES BY JUDGE 

(ALL OPINIONS) 

Number Filing Filing List List Draft 

of to to to to to 

Cases Decision List Decision Draft Decision 

(Number of days) 

TOTAL * ** ** 

Pre 260 331 247 84 59 24 

WP-EM 157 312 246 66 44 23 

Judge 

A Pre 31 339 268 71 50 21 

WP-EM 16 334 270 64 39 26 

B Pre 37 284 239 45 27 18 

WP-EM 20 271 226 45 23 22 

  

C Pre 22 346 234 112 79 33 

WP-EM 13 308 247 61 38 23 

**  

D Pre 36 345 265 80 61 20 

WP-EM 16 290 228 62 34 29 

E Pre 30 310 227 84 56 28 

WP-EM 22 316 235 80 58 23 

* * * 

F Pre 27 315 207 108 83 25 

WP-EM 17 344 255 89 67 22 

G Pre 21 373 269 104 76 28 

WP-EM 17 307 233 74 54 20 

** * ** 

H Pre 22 349 237 III 78 33 

WP-EM 8 337 269 69 50 19 

** ** 

I Pre 34 343 271 73 52 21 

WP-EM 17 308 271 37 18 19 

KEY: Same as tables 19 to 22 
64 

TABLE 23 

CASE PROCESSING TIME FOR 

PRE-PROJECT AND PROJECT ,CASES BY JUDGE 

(ONLY SIGNED OPINIONS) 

Number Filing Filing List List Draft 

of to to to to to 

Cases Decision List Decision Draft I'ecision 

SIGNED * ** ** 

Pre 1'/2 343 244 99 71 28 

WP-EM 132 317 242 74 50 25 

JUDGE 

  

A Pre 11 382 280 103 70 32 

WP-EM 16 324 270 64 39 26 

B Pre 17 295 232 63 40 24 

WP-EM 17 269 218 51 27 24 

**  ** 

C Pre 17 380 252 128 90 38 

WP-EM 12 306 242 64 41 23 

** 

D Pre 31 335 250 85 65 21 

WP-EM 15 296 231 65 36 30 

E Pre 24 307 221 86 58 28 

WP-EM 16 321 222 99 74 25 

  **  

F Pre 22 317 199 118 91 27 

WP-EM 16 343 250 93 69 24 

G Pre 13 414 293 121 93 28 

WP-EM 11 313 206 107 81 26 

**   

H Pre 17 358 234 122 86 36 

WP-EM 8 337 269 69 50 19 

**  ** 

I Pre 22 360 273 87 62 24 

WP-EM 10 330 283 46 25 22 

KEY: Same as tables 19 to 22 
65 

approximately 45 to 50 days and the slowest opinion writers whose 

opinions take 100 days (table 21). 
VI. IMPLEMENTING A PERMANENT WORD PROCESSING AND ELECTRONIC MAIL 

SYSTEM 

Word Processing and Electronic Mail Use in the Third Circuit 

Third Circuit Attitudes and Perceptions 

Each judge and the senior secretary in each judge's chambers 

r.esponded to a short questionnaire checking their attitudes 

toward word processing and electronic mail technologies (table 

24) • 

Almost all the Third Circuit respondents want to permanently 

retain the word processing equipment and believe this technology 

has greatly benefited the court. They were pleased with the 

capabilities of word processing equipment. 

Electronic mail capability did not rece~ve such a strong 

endorsement. Although a majority of the court would retain the 

existing electronic mail system (among active judges the vote was 

six in favor, three opposed), several judges and secretaries 

expressed some reservations. Most judges and secretaries want 

better transmission reliability--90 percent reliability is too 

low--and greater flexibility than is now available on the system. 

The respondents agreed that if reliability could be improved (to 

the 98 - 99 percent range) and if both typing and electronic mail 

communications could be provided simultaneously (new word processor models contain this feature), electronic mail should be 

retained. 

Most judges' personal comments about the technologies were 

positive. They believe that word processing technology 

decreases the time needed to retype opinions, but 

does not require a judge to modify work habits or 

office policies 

might not affect the opinion preparation process 

because it does not change their work procedures 

66 
67 

TABLE 24 

JUDGE AND SECRETARY ATTITUDES TOWARD 

WORD PROCESSING AND ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Question Responses Judges 

What value, if any, has the word 

processing equipment, exclusive of 

the communications capability, had 

for you? 

What value, if any, has the 

communications capability 

(electronic mail) had for you? 

What is you overall feeling about 

the word processing (exclude the 

communications--electronic 

mail--feature) system? 

What is your overall feeling about 

the electronic mail capability? 

If it were only your decision, 

would you permanently r~tain the: 

Substantial 

Moderate 

Small 

None 

Substantial 

Moderate 

Small 

None 

Favorable 

Unsure 

Unfavorable 

Favorable 

Unsure 

Unfavorable 

word processing machine, Yes 

exclusive of the electronic No 

mail--communications feature--

capability, in the Third Circuit? 

electronic mail capability in the Yes 

Third Circuit? No 

electronic mail capability, if it Yes 

had better reliability No 

(fewer transmission failures) 

and the ca~acity to both type 

one document and telecommunicate 

(send or receive by electronic mail) 

simultaneously? 

9 

1 

0 

0 

3 

4 

2 

1 

9 

1 

0, 

'7 

2 

1 

9 

~ 

.L 

6 

4 

10 

o 

Secretaries 

9 

1 

0 

" 

2 

6 

2 

0 

10 

0 

0 

6 

4 

0 

10 

o 

5 

5 

10 

o 
68 

reduces the likelihood that new errors will appear 

in revised versions 

keeps the drafting process moving (e.g., makes it 

easier to keep a particular opinion in mind and to 

change and sharpen the opinion even at the last 

minute) • 

Most secretaries expressed similar viewpoints, but were 

generally eVen more favorable than the judges. They understood 

better the advantages and limitations of the technologies, and 

they stated that the technologies would effect substantial time 

savings not only in chambers, but also in overall appellate case 

processing time. 

Use by Clerk of Court 

Traditionally, the opinion writer prepared the original 

typescript and a dozen duplicate copies which were released by 

the clerk of court. The introduction of word processors and 

electronic mail allowed the official opinion to be forwarded, 

received, and reproduced at the clerk's office within an hour 

instead of two days. This process has permitted th~ circuit to 

officially release opinions to litigants two days earlier. 

In addition, this technological process would permit the 

circuit to expedite the printing of slip opinions by either 

offset printing (camera-ready copy)--preparing high-quality 

19 printed copy using the word processor system --or phototypeset 

printing--providing a printing company with the text in machinereadable form that would eliminate the need for rekeyboarding the 

text (how~ver, special typesetting and format codes would have to 

be entered by the printer). Several printing companies in the 

Philadelphia metropolitan are'a are beginning to offer electronic 

transmission services between the printer's office and a user's 

word processing system. The Third Circuit may test this service 

during 1979. 

19. This approach has already been instituted by the Eighth and 

Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals. 
69 

The word processor installed in the clerk~s office has been 

used only to receive completed opinions via electronic mail. The 

clerk's word processing machine can be used to provide office 

support for visiting judges, prepare emergency orders and motions 

for dissemination to the court, and speed up transmission and 

production of slip opinions. The clerk's office has not, to 

date, attempted to use the word processor for preparation of 

reports, court orders, and the like. Given the clerk's office 

parsimonious use of the word processor, the word processor should 

be removed from the clerk's office if electronic mail service is 

discontinued, or if typing support activities described above are 

undesirable. 

Use by Law Clerks 

There are many more law clerks than judges in the Third 

Circuit. In most offices, law clerks prepare bench memoranda and 

initial drafts of opinions. Their work requires a higher proportion of revisions and rush typing than that of judges. Yet law 

clerks authored only 14 percent of the lines typed and 9 percent 

of all documents typed by the circuit secretaries during the 

project survey period (table 25). 

The apparent disparity between amount uf typing demand and 

actual typing support stems from the inadequate secretarial and 

typing support provided in most chambers, where the available 

secretarial support could not adequately meet all demands, and 

judges' work was given priority. In several chambers, law clerks 

were employed with the understanding that they would have to do 

their own typing. 

The lack of sufficient typing support for most law clerks 

causes delays in opinion preparation--usually several days. The 

problem is exacerbated when a law clerk prepares several preliminary drafts before submitting draft of the opinion for judicial 

review. Law clerk productivity could increase if additional 

typing support was pL~vided. The additional secretarial support 

provided each judge will help particularly in the preparation of 

bench memoranda, which do not require retyping. 
70 

TABLE 25 

THIRD CIRCUIT TYPING SURVEY: 

A COMPARISON OF JUDGE ORIGINATED AND 

LAW CLERK ORIGINATED TYPING 

Category Judge 

Originated 

Total lines typed 69,355 

% of all lines typed 77% 

Total documents typed 730 

% of all documents 

typed 82% 

PERCENTAGE RUSH TYPING 

Lines 25% 

Documents 18% 

PERCENTAGE REVISION 

TYPI.NG 

Lines 29% 

Documents 21% 

Law Clerk 

Or ig ina feed 

12,354 

14% 

79 

9% 

56% 

61% 

48% 

57% 
71 

Two strategies are suggested: when the typing workload is 

manageable, the circuit secretary should type the law clerk's 

draft on the word processor; or when the workload is too heavy 

(as is often the case), each law clerk should be trained to use 

the word processor. Law clerks can easily learn the 'rudimentary 

skills needed to operate a word processor by using a self-paced 

training manual provided by the vendor, with additional assistance provided by the secretaries. In some chambers, law clerks 

were easily taught to use the word processors for drafting 

opinions. They often had access to the equipment during regular 

office hours and in the evenings and on weekends. 

Use for Judgment Orders 

The ranking appellate judge on each panel drafts a judgment 

order before each appeal is reviewed. Each year, nearly a 

thousand proposed judgment orders are drafted, and approximately 

six hundred are issued. Judgment orders contain mostly standard 

text produced according to a prescribed format, with some variations in text to identify cases and parties. Because of this, 

judgment orders are ideally suited for quick, accurate production 

on the word processing equipment. 

Recommended Word Processing Equipment for the Third CircEit 

The results of the typing survey and the analysis of 

appellate case flow in the Third Circuit strongly suggest a need 

for the permanent installation of a video display, computer-based 

word processing system. Some basic features are definitely needed 

(editing, storing, and printing functions) but there is no need 

fo~ some of the more complex features (mathematical computations 

or elaborate list or index processing) that some systems contain. 

Most of the better word proce~sing systems have a basic set of 

features that are adequate for the efficient production of 

opinions and other court documents prepared in the judges' 

offices. This section contains a brief evaluation of the word 

processing system recommended for permanent installation in the 

Third Circuit. 
72 

All of the currently installed word processing machines in 

the Third Circuit are DEC WS100 or WS102 models. The new VT100 

video terminals are a new DEC product with all the basic capabilities of the WS100 line, plus extended video display capability, 

greatly increased storage capacity, and foreground-background 

communications capability. These new word processors will be 

termed the WS81 (one-terminal system) and WS82 (two-terminal 

system) word processors. The systems will be three to four 

thousand dollars less expensive than the WS100 equipment now 

installed in the Third Circuit. 

The WS81 and WS82 systems are recommended for word processing 

in the Third Circuit for several reasons. The equipment is easy 

to use and contains a good set of basic word processing text 

editing features. The WS81/82 hardware will extend the word 

processing software package considerably. In the past two years, 

DEC has announced seven new systems, all ~f which are compatible 

with the firm's previous offerings, and none of which requir~ 

retraining operators. DEC is the world's largest minicomputer 

manufacturer, with a large staff of experienced field maintenance 

personnel. Given the number and location of the Third Circuit 

offices DEC maintenance support is probably at least equal to 

that of other word processing manufacturers. DEC will be 

offering foreground-background communications with the WS81/82 

line. This capability will permit simultaneous electronic mail 

communications and secretarial typing. 

Given the other advantages of the WS81/82 line, the fact that 

Third Circuit secretaries have already been trained on this 

equipment is an important consideration. Retraining will be 

minimal if a WS8l/82 word processor is installed. Also, the WS8l 

word processor is extendable to a WS82 word processor. Thus, an 

additional terminal could be added should the need arise in the 

future. Although there is no pressing current need for 

additional storage capability, the new WS81 will offer the 

largest storage capability currently available for this type of 

word processing system. 
73 

For the Third Circuit, DEC word processing equipment offers 

the best overall combination of features, price, extendability, 

and maintenance support among the available systems. DEC word 

processors currently lack certain editing features--automatic 

footnoting, automatic hyphenation, a~d automatic paragraph 

numbering--that are now becoming available on other systems. 

These are all useful functions for operators, and DEC reports it 

will be adding them in the next year as new software releases are 

made available. 

utilization of Word Processing 

Not all typin~ ca~ be more efficiently handled on a word 

processor. A short one- or two-page document typed without any 

revisions and not containing any standard text can be as 

efficiently prepared, at less cost, on a standard typewriter. 

Most Third Circuit secretaries report their primary function 

is typing, and they are continuously pressed to stay ahead of the 

work flow. They were concerned with the best use of their typing 

equipment. Recognizing the production efficiencies that a word 

processor can provide, Third Circuit secretaries shifted preparation of 40 percent of the documents and 60 percent of the typed 

lines from the typewriter to the word processor (table 26). In 

most cases, word processing equipment was used appropriately. An 

additional 10 percent of the Third Circuit's documents should be 

prepared on the word processors. 

Training on Word Processing Equipment 

The years of experience, age, skills (typing skills and 

previous exposure to word processing equipment) varied widely 

among Third Circuit secretaries. Nevertheless, all these 

secretaries are competently using the basic editing capabilities 

of the word processor. As a group, however, they do not fully 

understand or take advantage of some of the more advanced 

features and capabilities of their machines. These advanced 

features could 'save them considerable typing time. For example, 

standard-form reports or documents such as judgment orders lend 

'. 
74 

TABLE 26 

THIRD CIRCUIT TYPING SURVEY: 

COMPARISON OF TYPING VOLUME ON THE 

WORD PROCESSOR AND OTHER TYPING EQUIPMENT 

Word Processing 

Item 

OPINIONS 

Document 

BENCH MEMOS 

Lines 

Document 

Lines 

Typed 

32,599 

143 

4,375 

17 

JUDGMENT ORDERS 

Lines 1,951 

Document 53 

CORRESPONDENCE 

Lines 8,682 

Document 813 

SPEECHES 

Lines 1,193 

Document 7 

MISCELLANEOUS 

Lines 5,466 

Document 613 

REVISION 

Lines 23,726 

Document 173 

RUSH 

~nes 213,1332 

Document 122 

TOTAL TYPING 

Lines 54,248 

Document 340 

% Typed Within 

Each Document 

Category 

96% 

91% 

29% 

18% 

94% 

813% 

43% 

213% 

49% 

54% 

32% 

32% 

86% 

76% 

76% 

66% 

613% 

38% 

Office Equipment 

(Electric, Mag Card, & 

Memory Typewriters) 

Lines 

Typed 

1,193 

13 

H',421 

78 

131 

8 

11,5213 

313 

1,258a 

6 

11,445 

128 

3,816 

55 

6,4131 

64 

36,219 

548 

% Typed Within 

Each Document 

Category 

4% 

8% 

71% 

82% 

6% 

213% 

57% 

813% 

51% 

46% 

68% 

68% 

14% 

24% 

24% 

34%-

413% 

62% 

a Nearly all of this typing was done by one secretary on a memory 

typewriter. 

75 

themselves to efficient preparation on a word processor, but at 

the time of the survey few secretaries understood the technique 

for setting up this application, and none were using it. This 

situation exists, in part, because training took place only once: 

when the equipment was installed, but before the secretaries had 

an opportunity to become familiar with the equipment and discover 

where they needed further instruction in the more sophisticated 

uses of the machine. Many secretaries did not have the time or 

inclination to further review the word processing reference 

manuals provided for such advanced training. 

To insure that secretaries are fully able to use both the 

basic and advanced features of a word processing system the 

followir.g training recommendations are suggested. 

Implementing word processing 

Training for new operators should take place in two 

phases. Basic editing features should be taught 

during the first phase. The more advanced features 

should be taught after sec~etaries have had time to 

become familiar with the equipment and wit.h the 

basic editing features. 

The trainer should help secretaries set up typing 

applications on the equipment in the most efficient 

manner possible. An experienced trainer can set up 

these applications very quickly, whereas a new 

operator may not find the most efficient method for 

weeks or months. Assistance in setting up applications would best be given in the second phase of 

training. 

Secretaries should be tewporarily released from 

office duties during training periods. Pool 

secretarial support could be provided. New 

operators would need no more than two days of 

training operators for most video display word 

processors. 

Circuit secretaries need assistance in setting up 

advanced applications that should be instituted 

when new software releases are made available (for 

the Third Circuit, this should be scheduled when 

WP81 machines are installed). 
76 

DEC Advanced Features 

All Third Circuit secretaries should be taught to use 

library routines: abbreviations, paragraph and 

document commands are easy to learn and will save 

considerable time when inserting standard text 

user-defined keys (UDK): repetitive typing can be 

programmed and stored by UDK, saving typing time 

and repetitious typing commands. For example, the 

entire sequence of commands for printing a 

document--calling the print menu, restoring 

predefined print formats, and ordering a document 

printed--could be stored in a single UDK 

list processing package: user can quickly and 

automatically print standard letters to various 

addressees, e.g., to answer law clerk applicant 

inquiries 

super (macro) document control: this new capability 

available on the WP81 allows a secretary or law 

clerk to divide the document into as many segments 

as desired for referencing, editing, and electronic 

transmission 

additional screen formatting capabilities on the 

WP81 

background-foreground communications capability: 

permits the user to transmit one document via 

electronic mail and simultaneously type or print 

another document. 

Law clerks were not initially trained to use the word processors. 

Several clerks have become very proficient on their own with some 

assistance from the secretaries. Considering the potential 

benefits, any law clerk who is interested should be encouraged to 

learn to use the word processor. 

Electronic Mail for the Third Circuit 

Electronic mail has provided faster delivery of court documents among all Third Circuit offices. Yet the average time for 

the court to review and file an opinion has not been reduced. 

Any technology might provide faster and improved service, but 

it cannot guarantee how the consumer will utilize the derived 
-- -- ---

77 

benefits. In this situation, electronic document transmission 

provides faster document exchanges among offices, but it cannot 

ensure how quickly a judge will review and respond to a draft 

opinion or memorandum. In an appellate court, the slowest member 

of the court determines the norm, particularly when the draft 

opinion is circulated. The Third Circuit's present eight-day 

review time limit needs to be altered to achieve time savings . 

. The present time limit was established, in part, to compensate 

for the uncertain and lengthy postal delivery (one judge proposed 

to extend the time to ten days because of further deterioration 

in postal service). The present rule does not require a judge to 

respond; therefore, more than one week can elapse without any 

action being taken. If the court would lower this time limit to 

three or four days, and suggest a response be sent to the opinion 

writer, the court's review time could be reduced. 

Whether electronic mail servic~ should be permanently retained is a difficult decision. The choice--like the selection 

of any advanced technology--is related to economic and administrative constraints. The costs can be reasonably estimated, 

although projected usage in the Third Circuit or other U.S. 

Courts of Appeals is uncertain. 

Electronic mail costs more than using the U.S. postal 

service. However, electronic mail using word processing 

equipment costs less than facsimile equipment or commercial air 

express delivery services. Such comparisons assume no cost is 

associated with the speed of delivery or the certainty of 

receipt; it is not possible to estimate cost including these 

factors. Delay is often expensive, sometimes it is costly to 

litigants awaiting decisions, sometimes to the court itself. The 

proverbial adage "justice delayed is justice denied" is as 

important in the appellate process as in the trial process. 

Telecommunications experts predict rapid growth in electronic 

mail, diminishing transmission costs, and a greater variety of 

services. Are the additional services worth the additional 

expenses? A final recommendation should probably be made by the 

court. 
78 

Word Processing and Electronic Mail Use in other U.s. Courts of 

Appeals 

How typical is the Third Circuit case flow and typing 

wor kload, compared to other Courts of .A.ppeals? A typing survey 

and a case monitoring survey would be needed in each circuit to 

derive precise figures, but the 1977 A.O. statistics on Courts of 

Appeals provide us with a reasonable basis for comparison. 

Several indices suggest that the Third Circuit workload and 

case processing time are representative of the Courts of Appeals. 

The median time for Third Circuit cases terminated after oral 

argument or submission ranked fifth of eleven circuits; the Third 

Circuit average was 9.1 months, compared to 9.4 months for all 

circuits 20• The number of cases per authorized Third circuit 

judge was 177 cases (sixth highest in ranking) compared to 184 

cases for all circuits2l; and the active circuit judges sat in 79 

percent of case participations in the Third Circuit--ranking the 

circuit sixth highest of all circuit courts which averaged 75 

percent. 22 

Among the U.s. ~ourts of Appeals, 66 percent of cases 

reviewed on the merits are disposed by written opinion, but only 

30 percent were disposed by written opinion in the Third 

C · . t 23 . . . . h lrCU1. ThlS flndlng suggests that word processlng tec nology 

might be even more beneficial in other circuits where opinion 

preparation work constitutes a higher proportion of the workload. 

20. Administrative Office of the U.s. Courts, 1977 Annual Report 

of the Director, table B4 (1977). 

21. Id., Table 3. G 

22. Id., Table 7. 

23. Id., Table 8. 
79 

Word Processing Equipment for Other Courts 

There are several word processing systems, manufactured by 

various vendors, that can adequately meet the typing demands of 

other U. S. Courts of Appeals or Distr ict Courts. 'i¥l1e following 

is a list of minimum or desirable features recommended for most 

courts. There are a number of additional features that can also 

be listed, depending on the types of documents and features 

desired in a particular court. 24 

Type of word processor: video display system 

Screen size: 8 by 11 inches (minimum) 

Lines of text displayed: 16 lines (minimum) 

Storage medium: floppy disc (diskette) or fixed disc 

Storage capacity per diskette/disc: 100 pages (250,000 

characters) (minimum) 

Format display: change anywhere in text 

Type of printer: daisy wh~el or jet ink 

Printer speed: 45 characters per second (minimum) 

Line Width: up to 13.2 inches 

Carriage paper width: up to 15 inches 

Character pitch/spacing: 10 or 12 (minimum) 

Print fonts: standard 

Printer capabilities: 

Bidirectional printing (in both directions) 

Simultaneous printing (produce one document while 

preparing another) 

24. Several technical or industry reports and articles describe 

an assortment of word processing equipment features~ for example, 

Datapro Report on Word Processing (1979) (report published by 

Datapro Corp., Delran, New Jersey). 
80 

Subscripts and superscripts (print character one-half space 

above or below typed line, as in footnotes) 

Right-justified or ragged-right margin 

Printout queuing (several documents await printing while 

operator performs other duties) 

Form Feeder: Single-sheet or continuous-feed paper 

Text-editing capabilities: 

Automatic margin adjustment 

Automatic carrier return and wraparound (automatic carriage 

return when line is filled, and placing next word on the 

following line) 

Automatic centering 

Automatic input underline (permits operator to specify 

beginning and end of underline portion without backspacing 

and underlining the entire text) 

Automatic line spacing (permits different line spacings) 

Automatic page numbering and renumberillg (automatically 

numbers the pages within a document or series of documents 

and renumbers after the text has been changed) 

Automatic pagination and repagination (automatically 

divides a multi-page document into pages of specific length, 

and repaginates if document is altered) 

Search and replace -(pe-rmlt-sopera·tor to·-'search through text 

for a particular word or phrase and quickly replace with 

another word or phrase) 

Delete (Ability to quickly delete a character,--one letter, 

number or symbol-- a word, a line, a sentence, or an entire 

paragraph, page, or document) 

Block move copy (easy movement of blocks of text--paragraph, 

page, or sentence--anywhere within text) 

Term glossary/dictionary (ability to store standard or 

frequently used phrases, paragraphs, or documents for quick 

insertion into text). 
APPENDIX A 

TYPING SURVEY BOOKLET 

Third Circuit Word Processing Survey 

May 15th June 5 th, 1978 

81 
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 

Purpose of the Survey 

The Federal Judicial Center is studying the uses of computer 

based word processing equipnent in the third circuit. 'Ihe results of this survey will help in determining equipnent and 

features needed to satisfy the word processing needs of the 

circuit. 

Typing Logs 

This survey is primarily designed to determine how much 

typing and what kinds of typing you receive during the dates of 

the survey. This booklet contains a series of daily log sheets 

which will allow you to quickly describe the typing work you 

receive. As you will see when you read the instructions, this is 

not a "productivity" survey. We are not seeking information on 

the time you spend typing specific documents. We are interested 

in the volume and nature of typing generated within the circuit. 

Communications Logs 

In order to assess the performance of the communications 

system, we have a second log sheet for you to use to record the 

exchange of opinions among judges in the circuit. Specific 

instructions for boLq the Typing Logs and the Communications Logs 

are on the next page. 

Survey Dates 

The Typing Logs in the back of this booklet have been designed to collect information on all of the typing jobs you receive 

over a three week period. '!he survey should begin on r-bnday, May 

15th and will conclude at the end of the day on r-bnday the 5th of 

June. Three mailers have been provided to return completed 

survey forms to Dr. Farmer at the end of each week. 'Ihey should 

be put in the mail at the end of the day on the following dates: 

Mail forms for first week: May 19, 1978 

Mail forms for second week: May 26, 1978 

l4ail forms for third week: June 5, 1978 

These booklets should be sent to: 

Dr. Larry C. Farmer 

J. Reuben Clark School of Law 

Brigham young University 

Provo, Utah 846~2 

If you have any questions on the survey task please feel free 

to call me at (801) 374-1211 ext. 2423. 

82 
,_ .. _--

INSTRUcrICNS FOR THE LOG SHEETS 

General Instructions 

Please start a new log sheet for each workday during the period of the typing survey. If on some days you need more space 

than is provided on a single log sheet, simply continue to log 

that day's jobs on the next page of the oooklet. Extra log 

sheets have been included in the booklet to allow for heavy typing days. 

If on a given day you don't do any typing, write "no typing" 

or "no exchange of opinions" on the respective log sheets for 

that day and start a new one for the next day. If you are absent 

fran work at any time during the period of the survey, put your 

name and the date you were absent on separate sheets for each day 

you are absent, aoo write "absent" on each of those sheets. 

'Ihe logs have been designed to allow you to quickly fill in 

the necessary information. This logs should take you more than a 

few minutes p!..>,r day to complete. Each job should be recorded 

irrmediately after it has been completed. It is i.mportant that 

you record all of the typing you do regardless of the size of the 

job. 

Filling in the Typing Log Sheets 

1. Document Name. In this space, provide a brief descr.iptive name for each document you type. For those docunents which 

you will later be asked to revise, this name should be lmique to 

the document you are typing. Each time a document is returned to 

you for revision typing you should use the same name you previously used to identify the document. 

2. Author's Initials. In this space, put the initials of 

the judge, law clerk, or court administrator who gave you the 

document to type. 

3. Machine Used. Note here which machine you used to type 

the document. For your convenience, the following codes are to 

be used: "T" for electric tyt.."ewriter: "DEC" for the word processirg machine; "Mag" for the mag card or memory typewriter; and 

"Mem" for memory typewriter. 

4. 

typing 

quires 

put an 

Rush or Normal. Here you are to indicate how quickly the 

is to be done. If it needs to be done quickly and reyour immediate attention, put an "R" for rush; otherwise 

"N" for normal. 

83 
84 

5. Light or Heavy Revisiorl. This should be filled in only 

if you are doing revision work on a document you previously typed. Light revision (L) for this survey is defined as \t.Ord modifications, typing corrections, and a few, but not extensive, 

sentence and paragraph corrections. More extensive revisions 

should be logged as heavy revision work (H). 

6. Revision Number. Indicate here how many times you have 

revised this document. Put a "0" for original typing, and a "1" 

for first the revision, a "2" for the second revision, etc. 

7. Total Lines Typed. Indicate the estimated number of lines 

you typed on the document in question. 

8. Total Pages in the Document. Write the total number of 

pages in the document in this space. 

Filling in the Typing Time Log 

1. Total Hours at WOrk. Record the mnnber of hours you 

spent at work for each day or the survey period. 

2. Typing Time. Shade in th~ time line to reflect those 

times during the day in which you were typing. For accuracy, it 

would be best if you shaded in the appropr iate amount of time 

each time you log in a job. '!'his is only for convenience and 

accuracy in reporting, since there is no need to relate the time 

you enter to individual jobs, as we are only interested in the 

overall typing time requiremer,i:s which you face in your office 

and not in the tline required for individual tasks. 
85 

Filling in the Communications Logs 

Purpose. '!he communications portion of the log sheets are to 

te used to record information on opinions sent to other judges 

and received from other judges during the survey period. Use 

this log to record all opinions sent or received during the time 

of the survey. Even record opinions returned to authoring judges 

with editorial comments. This information will help us in co~ 

paring the various methods being used to send c.md receive opinions within the circuit. 

1. 9::inion Case Number. Each opinion should be logged under 

the assoclated case number or lead case mnnber if the case has 

been consolidated. 

2. Judge's Name. In this column, enter the name of the 

judge you are working for. 

3. Author. If your judge was the author of this opmwn, 

write in a "Y" for yes, and if he was not the author write in a 

"N" for no. 

4. Document Sent or Received. For the sake of simplicity, 

you will use this log to record information both for those documents you send and for those you receive. In this column note 

whether the document you are recording is one you are sending out 

(8), or one you have received (R). 

5. 

bers to 

one you 

frem if 

Sent To or Received From. Write in the appropriate numindicate (a) who this document is being sent to if it is 

are sending out, or (b) who this document was received 

it is one you have received from another judge. 

6 • How Sent or Rece i ved • In this col umn, wr i te in the method used to send the document. The primary options are U.s. Mail 

(M), facsimile (FAX), and electronic mail using the word processor (WP). 

7. Transmission Interruption. If you were sending or receiving using the word processor, or the facirnile machine, put a 

check in this column if there was an abort in transmission. 

8. Calls Required. For all documents sent or received using 

the word processing equipment, indicate here the number of calls 

you made to the computer before you were able to establish a connection. 

9. Total Pages in the Document. In this column, write in 

the total number of pages in the aocument. 
NAME: DATE: ______________________ __ 

TYPING LOG SHEET 

Machine Rush Light or Total TotaJ 

Document Name Author's Used to or Heavy Revision Lines PageE 

Initials Type Doc Normal Revision Number Typed in 

(T, DEC, (R or N) (L or H) (est) Doc. 

or Mag) 

-

TYPING TIME LOG 

Total Hours at Work ____ __ 

Typing Time: (Shade in times you spent typing) 

7arn 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7pm 

86 
87 

NAME: DATE: 

COMMUNICATIONS LOG SHEET 

Case Number Judge's Opinion Document Document How Sent Number No. of 

of Opinion Name Author Sent or Sent tol or of Trans Calls Total 

Received Received Received Jliliorts if Req. to Pages 

(S or R) From (Mail, Fax or Connect in Doc 

(see code Fax, DEC if DEC 

at botton; DEC~ or Trans. 

of page) HandCarry) 

CODES TO BE USED TO ENTER THE NAMES OF JUDGES: 

1 = Seitz 5 = Rosenn 9 = Higginbotham 0 = Other (Includes 

2 Aldisert 6 = Hunter Sl = Van Dusen all other Senior 

3 = Adams 7 Heis C = Clerk's Office and District 

4 = Gibbons 3 = Garth CE Circuit Executive Judges) 
-------~~-- ~~ 

Appendix B 

Excerpts from 

Internal Operating Procedures (IOP) 

Court of Appeals 

for the Third Circuit 

88 
89 

[Section] E. Panel Conference Procedure and Decisions 

1. Tentative Views. After a case has been argued or 

submitted to a panel of the Court, a conference is held to 

exchange tentative views as to the decision. 

2. Opinion Assignment. Following discussion and tentative 

votes, the presiding judge assigns those cases in which opinions 

of thq Court are to be drafted to the judge~ of the panel for 

preparation of the opinion of the Court. 

F. Opinion Reflects Conference Views 

The opinion-writing judge prepares a draft opinion in 

accordance with the decision of the panel at conference or 

expressing any different views which he has reached after his 

subsequent study. of the case. The opinion may be a detailed 

statement of reasons supporting the Court's decision, signed by 

the writer for the Court. In appropriate cases it may be an 

opinion to be signed "Per Curiam." 

G. Per Curiam Opinions 

A Per Curiam opinion is generally utilized: 

1. For reversals of the trial court or denials of the 

requested relief from or enforcement of administrative agency 

action in those cases where the law is relatively clear and does 

not necessitate a signed opinion. 

2. For affirmances of the trial court or granting of 

relief from or enforcement of administrative action under 

circumstances where a signed opinion is not necessary, but fuller 

explanation of the court's action is needed than the mere 

affirmance by a judgment order. 

H. Plan for Publication of Opinions 

1. Policy. This Court publishes all signed opinions 

except where the panel, or court en banc, by majority vote, 

decides not to publish. While there is no presumption againsl 

publication of signed opinions, there should be publication only 

where the case has precedental or institutional value. An 

opinion which has value only to the trial court or litigants 

should not be published. 

4. Per Curiam Opinions. There is a presumption against publication of per curiam opinions. Unless the 

typescript copy affirmatively indicates that a per curiam opinion 

is for publication, the Clerk shall not cause it to be published. 
90 

I. Circulation of Opinions 

1. within Panel. After the draft opinion has been 

prepared the opinion-writing judge circulates it, with notice to 

the statistics clerk, to the other two members of the panel with 

a request for approval or suggestions they may desire to make 

with respect to the draft opinion. Answering this request is 

given a very high priority by the other two judges. Because it 

is tfie opinion of tfie Court, otfier mem6ers or the panel are free 

to make any suggestions relating to the modification of, addition 

to, or subtraction from the proposed text. Where a textual 

revision or addition is suggested, the suggesting judge submits 

his modification in specific language capable of being inserted 

in the opinion. When one of the other two judges approve, it 

becomes the proposed opinion of the Court. 

2. Circulation of Dissenting or Concurring Opinions. A 

dissenting or concurring opinion is sent to tfie writer of the 

majority opinion who has the responsibility of circulation to 

active members of the Court and of ultimate filing with the 

Clerk. 

3. Time Schedule for Panel Drafting and Circulating of 

Opinions. 

a. 60-day period for draft opinion writing. The 

Administrative Office of the United States Courfs;-pursuant to a 

resolution of the JUdicial Conference of the United States, 

requires notification by the Clerk of all cases which have not 

been terminated within a prescribed time. In order to effectuate 

this policy the opinion-writing judge is expected to circulate a 

draft of his opinion within sixty days after assignment. 

b. 45-day period to file concurring or dissenting 

oplnlon. If the third judge desires to circulate a concurring or 

dissenting opinion, he is given 45 days to do so or state that he 

wishes to be recorded as dissenting or concurring in the result. 

4. To Non-Panel Active Jud~. Per curiam opinions of 

the panel which are not to be published and which unanimously 

affirm the trial court or enforce the action of the administrative agency are filed forthwith with the Clerk by the opinion- writing judge. All other draft opinions of the panel are 

circulated to all active judges of the Court. The circulation to 

non-panel members takes place after (1) the draft opinion has 

been approved by all three panel members or (2) the draft opinion 

has been approved only by two members of the panel and ~he third 

panel member has submitted a separate opinion to be circulated 

with the majority opinion or has stated that he wishes to be 

recorded as dissenting or concurring in the result, or has been 

noted as not joining in the opinion. If, eight days after the 

opinion is mailed for circulation, no vote for rehearing is 

received by the opinion-writing judge, the opinion may be flIed. 
91 

J. Filing of Opinions 

The original typescript and sufficient copies of the opinion 

are sent to the Clerk for filing. 
"This publication printed by Federal Prison Industries, Inc., Printing Plant, 

Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc, California." 

"Training in the Printing Plant at Lompoc includes an apprenticeship program in composition, camera, plate making and offset printing. This program is ap- proved by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship and 

Training and the Los Angeles, California Area Multi-Trades Joint Apprenticeship Standards." 

FPi-LOM·3-79-7C 2190 
THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER 

The Federal Judicial Center is the research, development, and 

training arm of the federal judicial system. It was established by 

Congress in 1967 (28 U.S.c. §§ 620'{)29), on the recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 

By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States is chairman 

of the Center's Board, which also includes the Director of the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts and five 

judges elected by the Judicial Conference. 

The Center's Continuing Education and Training Division 

conducts seminars, workshops, and short courses for all thirdbranch personnel. These programs range from orientation seminars for judges to on-site management training for supporting 

personnel. 

The Research Division undertakes empirical and exploratory 

research on federal judicial processes, court management, and 

sentencing and its consequences, usually at the request of the 

Judicial Conference and its committees, the courts themselves, 01' 

other groups in the federal court system. 

The Innovations and Systems Development Division designs 

and helps the courts implement new technologies, generally under 

the mantle of Courtran II-a mUltipurpose, computerized court 

and case management system developed by the <iivision. 

The Inter-Judicial Affairs and Information Services Division 

maintains liaison with state and foreign judges and judicial 

organizations. The Center's library, which specializes in judicial 

administration, is located within this division. 

The Center's main facility is the historic Dolley Madison 

House, located on Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C. 

Copies of Center publications can be obtained from the 

Center's Information Services office, 1520 H Street, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20005; the telephone number is 202/633-6365.