These are selected ways in which Mr. Van Ee has served the broader community:

-Candidate for Alameda County Superior Court Judge, June 7, 2016 who prepared the “Judge Candidate Statement of Commitment to Participate in the Community with Effective Technology Approaches” (a copy of which is found at the bottom of this web page; I am thankful for the roughly 40,000 voters who supported my candidacy by voting for me and for the judicial approach outlined in this document)

-Instructor, “E-Discovery Advantage: Managing High-Volume Data Demands,” U.C. Berkeley Extension, Berkeley, CA Spring 2013

-Board of Advisors, Paralegal Studies Program, U.C. Berkeley Extension, Berkeley, CA, 2012

-Instructor, “Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment,” Dordt College (online) Spring 2012

-Instructor, “Harnessing Powerful Technology to Excel in the New Legal Information Age,” U.C. Berkeley Extension, Berkeley, CA Spring 2011

-Speaker, “Technology Updates: What is the Best Approach for a Secure Law Office?” Seminar for the Eastern Alameda County Bar Association, Pleasanton, CA, May 20, 2011

-Creator of video advocating the use of technology in the judicial process entitled “Court E-Filing Technology That Earns Money” (October 3, 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgtPL7j85so

-Author, Powerful Technology For The New Legal Information Age (Lulu Press, 2010)

-Advise tenants of rights relating to uninhabitable dwellings.

-Author, “Turbo-Charge Your Practice With Powerful Standard Technology,” The Bottom Line, December 2010

-Participate in conferences of the Greater San Jose Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 2003 – 2010

-Speaker, “What Are Your Legal Rights?” Seminar for CPC Job Connections, Danville, CA, 2009

-Advise nonprofit homeowner associations on how to efficiently fulfill their legal obligations while serving homeowners.

-Speaker, “Legal Issues Facing New Minority-Owned Small Businesses,” Seminar for the Greater San José Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, San José, CA, 2004

-Contribution to Prof. E. Allan Farnsworth’s analysis of contracts recognized by Prof. Farnsworth. See E. Allan Farnsworth, Parables About Promises: Religious Ethics and Contract Enforceability, fn. 1, 71 Fordham L. Rev. 695, 2002.

-Active member in the Columbia Law School Latino American Law Students Association and assisted disabled law student with studies during law school.

 

JUDGE/JUDGE CANDIDATE STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT TO

PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY

WITH EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY APPROACHES

 

I believe a judge should help the community by giving the entire community greater access to the courts.  I want to deliver judicial services to a large number of people using digital technologies.  I want to have a standing order that outlines how the community can digitally interact with me without needless hassles.  As the County of Alameda becomes more populated, this is important.  There is a mountain range going through the County and freeways cannot easily be widened through that mountain range or through the heavily populated Interstate 880 corridor.  As a result, it is important for the Court system to think about how to serve the community without having a default rule that the community must physically transport itself to a courthouse.  Instead, the default rule should be that people may interact digitally with the Court system without using the transportation grid.  This will reduce congestion, carbon emissions, and will make the roads more accessible for people actually do need to use them.

For important trials and important pretrial events, parties may need to be physically present at a courthouse.  But on most matters, they should be able to appear via skype and submit documents electronically.  I want to help make this a reality in a courtroom.  I also want to work with other judges and on committees to make this approach work for the court system more generally.

I want to leverage the power of technology to more quickly access, understand, and rule on important cases.  The resulting efficiencies will allow judges to make better decisions faster in more cases.

This is important because a key component of giving the community more access to the courts is making the court system more effective at doing its job.  If more people have access to the courts, but the courts cannot actually adjudicate cases effectively, the community will not be served.

I want to put into practice as a judge efficient systems that help the court system carry out its mission of serving the community.  For example, an electronic file naming convention that automatically orders the files in across multiple platforms may be helpful.  For example, if a John Smith files a lawsuit against Jane Jones, the documents in that file (which will include all of its exhibits) could be organized as follows:

2016.5.14 – Complaint Smith v. Jones case no. CVXXXXXX

2016.5.14 – Summons Smith v. Jones case no. CVXXXXXX

2016.6.23 – Answer Smith v. Jones case no. CVXXXXXX

This naming convention accomplishes a number of things, including:

-files should be organized chronologically across multiple platforms (in the cloud with services like box.com and dropbox, on both PC and Mac desktops, and on apps that run on mobile devices).

-Even if a person can only see a portion of the file name – which is common on mobile devices and even on many desktop systems – they will still be able to see what the file is about because the key words are at the beginning (like “Complaint”).

-This naming convention accommodates humans (which can more easily remember words, like “Smith v. Jones”) and computers (which can more easily sort numbers, like the case number “CVXXXXXX”).  As a result, a person will be most easily able to search for a case (by entering the unique case number) and recognize the case as being accurate (because a person can remember the “Smith v. Jones” name more easily than they can remember a case number).  Searches can be done with even rudimentary search functionality on multiple devices using different PC, Mac, desktop or mobile platforms.

-This versatility will enable judges with different skill sets using different technologies stay on the same page with parties, other judges, and Court staff.  Standing orders, protocols, local rules, and simple programs can all be put in place to implement, automate and significantly streamline court procedures for everyone.

Being a more effective judge who skillfully uses information technology extends far beyond the implementation of internal technologies and standards of practice.  New approaches for interfacing with parties must also be implemented and refined.  For example, I believe parties should be able to send an email to a judge and, in the span of one or two paragraphs, concisely explain an issue they have.  They can attach significant amounts of documentation to support their position with respect to the issue they identify.  The opposing party should be given an opportunity to explain their position – also within the span of one or two paragraphs.  All of this should take place via email.  If the parties request a video Skype hearing, or if the judge decides such a hearing is necessary to clear up any ambiguity, then such a hearing should take place.

As a judge I want to have a dialogue with the community about:

-increasing the court’s caseload to serve a broader part of the community

-using technology to streamline the communication relating to that increased caseload

-focusing the parties’ and judges’ resources on important information in the entire caseload to make the work manageable with the court’s existing resources.

I want to serve on committees to make court functions outside my courtroom, like the court’s website, significantly more user friendly.  For example, if two people have a legal dispute with each other that a judge should decide, they currently face a series of hurdles that should be eliminated.  They have to do unnecessary research on the judicial process because the Court’s website does not have a simple decision tree beginning on its home page that will guide them through a whole series of selections they must make.  Will they file in Small Claims, Limited Jurisdiction, Unlimited?  What are the one-sentence, or two-sentence, reasons why the plaintiff would consider filing a lawsuit in one of those divisions vs. the other ones?  The plaintiff has to spend an unreasonable amount of time to locate information, and they may eventually give up and decide they need to spend time and money to locate an attorney.

I want to work with other judges and court staff to accomplish the following:

i. Court websites should be organized intuitively to allow people to quickly bring, or defend, their case.  They should be able to file their documents electronically without having to take time off from work to commute to a downtown courthouse, find parking, etc.  A person should be able to access justice with the same ease that they access a website.

ii. Parties should be able to appear in court via an online service like Skype in certain small claims matters and on case management matters for other cases.  This will avoid the costs of leaving work, sitting in traffic and finding parking at a courthouse.  This approach will also avoid courthouse construction and maintenance costs.

Unlike large organizations, the average person does not have the necessary money or knowledge to prosecute or defend their rights effectively under the current system.

While there is a consensus that technology should be more widely used, the judiciary has obviously faced significant obstacles in actually implementing technology solutions on a wide scale.  I hope to help overcome this problem.

I commit to refraining from hindering digital cooperation among parties.  I want the default rule in my courtroom to be that I will reinforce and follow any digital communication that may exist among parties.  As a result, if there are any parties that have found ways to share documentation and to communicate more effectively through new technologies (i.e., new file-sharing technologies, video conferencing technologies and the like) I want to allow them to use those technologies to interface with my courtroom if possible.  To implement this approach, I plan to inform parties that I will not use local rules or other rules to restrict their cooperation or information exchanges.  Instead, if the court can be easily and effectively added to a method of communication or cooperation between parties, the court will do so.

I want to work on developing new standards for sanctioning information abuse.  Because certain people in the community may well abuse new communication capabilities (by spamming the court or opposing parties, for example), there may well be a need to develop new standards for sanctioning parties who abuse digital communications.  I want to work with other judges, attorneys, and people in the community to develop easily-understood criteria for sanctioning parties.  Then I want to communicate that criteria to litigants so that they have fair warning of the standards for sanctions arising from digital communication abuse.  Only after repeated clear direction from me would a party then get sanctioned by being blocked from digital communications, or by perhaps having a monetary sanction imposed on them.  The main purpose of this sanction regime is to make digital communications available to people in the community who do in fact want to interface with the court in a productive non-abusive manner.

I want to develop a simple and clear Standing Order for my department that will inform parties of the parameters for the opportunity to efficiently interface with the Court.  Here is a rough draft standing order:

 

ROUGH DRAFT STANDING ORDER

TO COMMUNICATE DIGITALLY WITH COURTROOM NO. [INSERT]

THE HON. [INSERT NAME] PRESIDING

1. All chambers copies may (but are not required to) be submitted electronically as attachments to emails sent to: [INSERT EMAIL ADDRESS] if they are sent at least one hour before the time they would otherwise be due.

2. As a matter of right, and unless the Court rules differently in a particular case, every other week parties may send an email to the Court on important case management matters following the parameters outlined herein. In the span of one or two paragraphs, the moving party must concisely explain an issue they have to the opposing party.  The opposing party shall have at least one business day to explain their position – also within the span of one or two paragraphs.  They can attach significant amounts of documentation to support their position with respect to the issue(s) they identify and the ruling they request.  The moving party may then submit their email exchange with the opposing party to the court, with a maximum of a two-sentence reply (that are not more than 100 words total in length for both sentences together) to the opposing party’s position, at this email address: [INSERT EMAIL ADDRESS].  If the parties request a video Skype hearing, and if the judge decides such a hearing is necessary to clear up any ambiguity, then such a hearing shall take place.

Parties are not required to participate in this process.  However, by participating in this convenient digital process the parties waive any objection to the instantaneous and convenient nature of the process or any consequence of such a process throughout the pendency of their case.  The parties however do not waive any objection(s) to the substance of any ruling made further to this process.