Skip to main content
  • Caselaw
    Tools overview Search Trends API Timeline Cases by Jurisdiction Bulk Data Fetch PDFs From Text
  • Support/docs
    Docs Overview API Bulk Data Search
  • Gallery
    Gallery home CAP Labs Research Results Coursework Fun Stuff Applications Applications Third Party Tutorials
  • About
    About CAP Contact
  • Log in
Documentation / User Pathways / Digital-First Publishing for Courts
    • For Researchers
        • How do you want to access caselaw data?
          • Bulk Downloads
          • API
        • What level of access do you need?
        • How do I register?
        • How do I apply for researcher access?
          • Important Caveats
          • Eligibility
          • Where do I apply?
    • For Courts
        • Digital-First Guidelines
            • Introduction
            • Digital-first publishing guidelines
              • Essential characteristics
                • Online
                • Free & Open
                • Comprehensive
                • Official
                • Citable
                • Machine Readable
              • Desirable characteristics
                • Digitally Signed
                • Versioning
                • Structured Data
                • Medium-Neutral
                • Archives
                • Search
                • Bulk
                • API
        • Case Studies
            • Case study: Arkansas
            • Case study: Canada
            • Case study: New Mexico
    • For Libraries
    • Registration
    • Search
        • Overview
        • What's included?
        • Searching in CAP is simple
          • First: Choose What To Search
          • Second: Select Your Search Criteria
          • Third: Execute the Search
        • Full-Text Case Search
          • Phrase Search
          • Exclusion
        • Tips
        • Getting Legal Help
    • API
        • API Learning Track
        • Authentication
          • Get an API Key
          • Modify The Request Headers
          • Example
          • Failure: error_auth_required
          • Browsable API
          • Sitewide Token Authentication
        • Case Text Formats
        • Pagination and Counts
          • Example
        • Endpoints
          • API Base
          • Cases Endpoint
            • Endpoint Parameters
            • Single Case Endpoint
            • Search Syntax
            • Examples
          • Reporters Endpoint
            • Endpoint Parameters
            • Examples
          • Jurisdictions Endpoint
            • Endpoint Parameters
          • Courts
            • Endpoint Parameters
          • Volumes
            • Endpoint Parameters
          • Ngrams
            • Endpoint Parameters
            • Examples
    • Bulk Data
        • Access Limits
        • Downloading
        • API Equivalence
        • Data Format
        • Using Bulk Data
        • Other repositories
    • Historical Trends
        • Start Here
        • Reading Results
          • Key
          • Horizontal axis
          • Vertical axis
        • Customize
          • Percentage Count/Instance Count/Scaling
          • Smoothing
        • Table view
        • Keyboard navigation
        • Download
        • Wildcard search
        • Citation search
        • Jurisdiction search
        • Jurisdiction codes
        • Filter fields
        • Citation feature
    • API Learning Track
        • Intro to APIs
        • CAP API Tutorial
            • Intro: Browsable API
            • Intro to JSON
            • curl
            • Overview of the endpoints
            • Dig-in With Real Queries
            • Next Steps
            • Wrap-up
        • CAP API In Depth
            • Getting Started
              • Making Basic Queries
              • Filtering
              • Search
                • Full-text Search
                • Filtering by Groups or Ranges
              • Sorting
                • Random sorting
              • Types of Data You Can Query
            • Getting Full Case Text
            • Authentication
              • Find your API Key
              • Modify Your Headers
                • curl
                • python requests library
                • Other Environments
              • Doesn't work?
                • error_auth_required
                • error_limit_exceeded
            • Data Formats
              • Structured Casebody Text
            • Other Endpoints
    • Access Limits
        • Exceptions
        • Open Jurisditions
        • Research Access
        • Commercial Licensing
        • User Types and Permissions
          • Unregistered Users
          • Registered Users
          • Researchers
          • Commercial Users
    • Stability and Changes
    • Reporting Problems
        • Misspelled Words
        • Website Errors
        • Metadata Errors
    • Documentation Glossary
        • API
        • Character
        • Special Character
        • Command Line
        • curl
        • Endpoint
        • Jurisdiction
        • OCR
        • RESTful
        • Reporter
        • Server
        • Slug
        • String
        • Top-Level Domain
        • URL
        • URL Parameter
        • URL Path
        • Open Jurisdiction
        • Restricted Jurisdiction
        • Cursor
    • Data Specifications
        • Bulk
          • Structure
          • Data Format
        • API
          • Individual Records
          • Query Results
        • Individual Objects
          • Case
            • Casebody
            • Analysis Fields
          • Jurisdiction
          • Court
          • Volume
          • Reporter
          • Citation
          • Ngrams
    • Changelog
        • August 28 2020
        • August 2020
        • June 2020
        • April 2020
        • March 2020
        • February 2020
        • January 24, 2020
        • January 19, 2020
        • January 16, 2020
        • January 9, 2020
        • December 6, 2019
        • October 1, 2019
        • July 31, 2019
        • June 19, 2019

Introduction

Courts and their Reporters of Decisions have worked throughout U.S. history to ensure public access to their opinions. While the methods of ensuring public access to law have evolved over the years, courts’ commitment to publicly disseminating their opinions has never wavered. Today courts are planning actively to move away from print-first publishing practices and toward digital-first publishing that will enable universally free public access to the law online.

High-level goals

To enable this critical transition, courts should seek and adopt digital-first publishing solutions that would make all of their new opinions freely and openly accessible online in an authoritative, citable, machine-readable format.

These solutions should prioritize court convenience, high-quality public access, reliability, cost-effectiveness and comprehensiveness. And they should offer the courts at least three things:

  • Self-publishing tools – Easy-to-use, high-quality, and cost-effective self-publishing tools adapted to the existing editorial workflow of the court.
  • Public access website – A public website affording free, open access to newly issued court opinions in HTML and PDF, with vendor-neutral and medium-neutral citation. The website should provide customizable metadata fields, a search engine suited to legal information, an API to enable programmatic access and bulk downloads and Web accessibility compliance for users with disabilities.
  • Professional support and service – An experienced support and service team dedicated to helping courts fulfill their publishing and access goals.

These solutions should be available as software-as-a-service requiring no IT infrastructure from the court. Pricing should be flexible and affordable, and overall cost should be significantly lower than the cost of producing print volumes of case reports.

CAP Digital-First Guidelines

Our RFP guidelines page lists essential and desirable characteristics for any digital-first case publishing solution.

Historical cases

When courts make this transition to digital-first publishing for new opinions, the Harvard Law School Library will provide and make publicly available a free, open collection of historical opinions (as scanned images and as OCR-generated text) published in all official reports prior to 2019.

Case studies

Solutions meeting the essential guidelines are in place already in many courts, including:

  • New Mexico Compilation Commission: website - case study
  • Arkansas Judiciary: website - case study
  • Illinois Judiciary: website
  • Supreme Court of Canada: website - case study

Participating Vendors

We are happy to highlight vendors committed to working with courts to offer digital-first publishing solutions that meet these criteria. Vendors making this commitment include:

  • Lexum

Please contact us if you know of other vendors who have demonstrated their willingness to help courts transition to digital-first publishing.

  • Find what you were looking for?

    If you have suggestions for improving this documentation, let us know!

Digital-First Publishing for Courts

Guidelines for courts moving to digital-first case publishing.

Caselaw
  • Search
  • API
  • Trends
  • Bulk Data
  • By Jurisdiction
  • Fetch PDFs
Gallery
  • CAP Labs
  • Research
  • Coursework
  • Fun Stuff
  • Community Apps
  • Our Apps
  • Community Tutorials
Docs
  • About CAP
  • Docs Overview
  • API
  • Bulk Data
  • Search
Site text is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source code is MIT licensed. Harvard asserts no copyright in caselaw retrieved from this site. ©2023 The President and Fellows of Harvard University.
terms
privacy
accessibility