1. Part 1 – James Bamberger
Director, Washington State Office of Civil Legal Aid
Part 2 – David Keyes
Community Technology Program Manager, City of Seattle
Part 3 – Brian Rowe
LSNTAP – Project Coordinator
With thanks to the Hon. Donald Horowitz (Ret.)
King County Superior Court
Moderator – Rick Stroup
Public Law Library of King County

2.  Sit Close
 Emergency Exits
 Silence Your Devices
 Tweet to #AALL13
 Questions at the Aisle Microphone
 Materials Available at www.kcll.org/aall/

3. James Bamberger, Director
Washington State Office of Civil Legal Aid

4. Established by Washington Supreme Court in 1994 to:
 Promote fair and full access to the justice system for low and moderate income
people
 Facilitate the development of non-duplicative civil legal aid delivery system
 Address impediments that operate to impede or deny access to the justice system
Supreme Court Order and ATJ Board Guiding Principles embrace
principle that:
Washington State’s justice system is founded on the fundamental principle that the
justice system is accessible to all persons.

5. ATJ Board establishes Technology Committee to facilitate the
coordinated development of technology-based legal aid initiatives and to guide a
consumer-focused effort to promote full and inclusive use of emerging technologies
in promoting access to the justice system
Emergence and implementation of new technologies within the justice
system creates concerns about institutionalizing a “digital divide”; perpetuating
existing and creating new systemic barriers to access; marginalizing persons who do
not have access to technology or experience barriers to using technology; and
compromising the ability of individuals to achieve “justice outcomes” consistent with
the merits of their cases.
Jean Holcomb, King County Law Librarian and ATJ Technology
Committee Chair, writes article in May 2000 Washington State Bar News asking:

6. The Digital Divide and Digital Justice:
Do Clients Need a
Technology Bill of Rights?

7. ATJ Board establishes “ATJ Technology Bill of Rights (TBoR)
Committee
 Hon. Donald Horowitz (King County Sup. Ct. Ret.), Chair
 Jean Holcomb (Director, King County Law Library), Vice-Chair
Mission Statement:
“To create a body of enforceable fundamental principles to ensure that current and
future technology both increases opportunities and eliminates barriers to access to
and effective utilization of the justice system, thereby improving the quality of justice
for all persons in Washington State.”

8. Understanding the Challenge; Defining the Objectives
ATJ TBoR Committee reaches out to local, state and national law and public librarians,
including:
 Jan Walsh, Washington State Law Librarian
 Deborah Jacobs, Librarian. City of Seattle
 Nancy Kranich, President, American Library Association
Introduction to 1976 ALA Library Bill of Rights
A model that suggested:
 Simplicity
 Accessibility
 Focus on Core Objectives/Values

9.  Public and law librarians included in every aspect of the work
 Key stakeholders from other communities engaged throughout:
 Courts
 Court administrators
 Clerks
 Civil legal aid/Access to Justice Community
 Criminal justice system representatives
 Low income individuals and low income community leaders
 Representatives of key ethnic and minority groups throughout the state
 More than 100 volunteers from a broad range of professional and technology
oriented disciplines
 Establishment of initial collaboration with UW Information
School (formerly the UW Library School)

10.  Initial drafts prepared, circulated and critiqued
 Independent consultant retained; focus groups of court system users and
other key stakeholders (internal and external) held throughout Washington State
 Focus group report and recommendations received
 Informal library surveys conducted
 Final drafts developed, circulated and critiqued, then delivered to the
Washington Supreme Court and Administrative Office of the Courts with
recommendation that they be adopted by court order applicable to all justice system
entities under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
 Supreme Court issues order adopting the Washington State Access to
Justice Principles on December 3, 2004

11.  ATJ Tech Principles are about values – not technology.
 “The use of technologies in the Washington State justice system must protect and
advance the fundamental right of equal access to justice. There is a particular need
to avoid creating or increasing barriers to access and to reduce or remove existing
barriers for those who are or may be excluded or underserved, including those not
represented by counsel.”
 ATJ Tech Principles focused on promoting six independent but related goals in
service of a common overarching vision of how the justice system should operate:
Requirement of Access to Justice Technology and Just Results
Openness and Privacy Assuring a Neutral Forum
Maximizing Public Awareness Use Best Practices

12. @ATJWEB
#Atj-Tech-Prin
To make the legal system more accessible and more fair to all through proper use of
technology
#Preamble
Access to justice is a fundamental right. The justice system must use technology to
enhance and deliver access to justice for all.
#Scope
By WA Supreme Court Order the Principles apply to & guide all who are under the
Court’s authority, and will help others.

13. #1AdvanceATJ
Do no harm. Advance access, understandability & usability for all with
technology. Avoid pushing or keeping anyone out.

14. #2JustResults
Tech should enable decision-makers to be properly informed so as to
increase the likelihood of just results.

15. #3Openness&Privacy
Tech should increase justice system transparency while respecting &
protecting personal privacy.

16. #4NeutralForum
Tech should help assure a neutral, fair, accessible, affordable and
transparent forum for all.

17. #5MaxPubAware
We must inform and advertise to all of the public about available tools,
and how to find and access them.

18. #6BestPractices
We must develop, use and share Best Practices standards, procedures
& tools to implement the Principles.

19. The Supreme Court Order – December 3, 2004
Adopting the principles requires that Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in
conjunction with the Access to Justice Board and the Judicial Information Systems
Committee to report annually on the use of the ATJ Tech Principles

20. Building Implementation Infrastructure
Adoption of 2006 Implementation Plan
Develop organizational checklists and project development checklists
Sponsor and host ATJ Tech Principles implementation and support
website – www.atjweb.org
Develop implementation guides for organizational leaders and
technology system developers

21. Develop standard contract language that requires adherence to ATJ
Tech Principles in the development of justice system technology initiatives
Identify and chronicle best practices
Maintain a robust and expanding relationship between the ATJ
community and the iSchool
Maintain a standing ATJ Board Technology Committee to help
monitor and initiate technology use within the justice system and the development
of best practices that serve the core objectives of the ATJ Tech Principles

22.  ATJ community develops JusticeNet idea – to build a system of
integrated capacities, applications and interdisciplinary functions designed to make
the justice system more accessible to all who need it, consistent with the ATJ
Technology Principles
 2009 Recovery Act proposes range of community based investment
opportunities. ATJ Community joins with Communities Connect Network, public and
law libraries, and others committed to enhancing and expanding digital literacy to
promote the creation of courthouse and library-based Public Law and Justice Centers
 Grant release press conference highlights Washington State’s novel
proposal to expand justice system literacy through partnerships with courts,
community based public computing centers and libraries
 Development of statewide portal and two site-located projects (Chelan
County and Kalispel Tribe)

23. Supreme Court Order Adopting ATJ Technology Principles
ATJ Technology Principles
Articles
Donald Horowitz (Washington Law Review)
Richard Zorza (Washington Law Review)
ATJ Web
ATJ Technology Resources Page

24. David Keyes, Community Technology Program Manager
Department of Information Technology, City of Seattle

25.  Digital inclusion frameworks
 Data sources on technology adoption
 Applying the principles to systems
 Communities Connect /JusticeNet
 IT equity toolkit
 Community Input and Bigger Picture
David Keyes
@diginclusion
Seattle.gov/tech

26.  Access
 Literacy
 Content
(reading & writing)
For residents, businesses and NGO’s
Digital Divide Digital Inclusion
Broadband Deployment & Adoption

27. Access to devices and the Internet
 Availability, cost, ease of use for connectivity to the Internet,
and end-user hardware and software. Assistive technology.
Also tech support.
Literacy in using computer and Internet technologies
 Skills required in order to utilize the equipment and Internet
effectively for essential services, education, employment, civic
engagement and cultural participation.
Meaningful and useful content and services available
 Services available for those in need, culturally and educationally
appropriate design, marketing and placement appropriate to
reach underserved communities, and enabling of content
production and distribution by lower capacity residents,
businesses and organizations.

28. Institute of Museum and Library Services, University of Washington,
International City/ County Management Association. (2012 January).

29. 6/13 NTIA report: Exploring the Digital Nation

30.  71.7 percent have used Internet (NTIA/census
2011)
◦ 76.2 non-Hispanic Whites
82.7 Asian
◦ 58.3 Hispanic
◦ 56.9 Black
Social media use is closer
Smartphones: 56%. Higher income adults & under
35 lead (Pew)
Education, Age, Income, Disability difference
Libraries & public computing are still relevant
71.7 76.2 82.7
58.3 56.9
0
20
40
60
80
100

31. ◦ State Council on Digital Inclusion
◦ Developed state definition of digital inclusion
◦ BTOP Public Computing project
 35 Centers in 7 counties
 Access to Justice computers in 2 courthouses
 Multilingual video content developed by WA Law Help
◦ PARTNERSHIPS!

34.  Where does info tech touch system users & operators?
 The public?
 Where do our systems enable others to touch the public?

35.  Identify accurate requirements
 Make conscious and deliberate choices
(i.e. languages)
 Identify and Eliminate unintended barriers
 Improve user acceptance

36.  What diversity is there in the stakeholders?
 How does the project team reflect that diversity?
 How does product design/selection ensure best
outcome?
 How are differing needs of different groups met
throughout the project lifecycle?
• Outreach
• Training
• Support
36

38. • Net Neutrality
• Broadband
• Universal Service Fund
• Consumer cell/data plans
• Digital literacy investments
• Consumer rights/privacy/
security

39.  Apply equity principles internally to your own
organization
 Be at the table in planning delivery of
e-services
 Advise justice system web developers
 Support patrons digital literacy
 Apply equity principles in communications
strategies

40.  National Everyone On Campaign
 Pew Internet and American Life
 NTIA report: Exploring the Digital Nation
 Connecting People for Development Study
 Communities Connect Network
 Digital Inclusion Framework
 Seattle Information Technology Equity Project Management Tool
 Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative
 Seattle Information Technology Indicators

41. To learn about the research and evaluation projects
lead by the U.S. IMPACT Study research group and
how the IMPACT Team can help your library through
implementing strategic evaluation, workshops,
research, visit:
http://tascha.washington.edu/usimpact/
Find out more about IMLS initiatives to help
community leaders make strategic decisions
about technology investments at
http://www.imls.gov/about/digitally_inclusi
ve_communities.aspx
Learn about the project team and download
a copy of the extended report:
http://tascha.uw.edu/projects/digital-
inclusion-framework/

42. Brian Rowe J.D., LSNTAP – Project Coordinator,
Adjunct Professor, Seattle University School of Law,
University of Washington Information School

43. Brian Rowe J.D.
Techie Legal Geek
LSNAP.org @ Northwest Justice Project
Blogger @ DigitalRightsNW.org
Youtube GeekightsNW.orgek

44. Cyborg Boy by ~Gryz at Deviant Art

45. Accessibility
I. Requirement of Access to Justice

46. identitywebandphoto.com/carrie/portfolio/cncoker/edit6600/badrevealed.html

47. wave.webaim.org

49. checkmycolours.com

50. checkmycolours.com

51. WriteClearly.org

53. Spell Suggest
The Red Model - Rene Magritte

54. screencast-o-matic.com

57. popcorn.webmaker.org

58. youtube.com/user/
citpprinceton

60. Ingress

61. Public Law Library of
King County

63. Thanks!
Brian@BrianRowe.ORG
Credits:
Content Brian Rowe CC-BY with credit to:
Northwest Justice Project
Privacy Keyboard by By g4ll4is CC-BY-SA,
Other images often used under fair use or CC as noted
Rowe image by Bipolar Images - Geoffrey Gribbin Photography

64. QUESTIONS?

65. Tweet at #AALL13 Complete Email Evaluation
Download PDF Materials
www.kcll.org/aall
Contact James Bamberger
jim.bamberger@ocla.wa.gov
Contact David Keyes
David.Keyes@seattle.gov
Contact Brian Rowe
Brian@BrianRowe.org
Contact Rick Stroup
rick.stroup@kingcounty.gov