E-Filing Intelleader Describes CTC2011 Experience
October 15, 2011
Andrew Clark, Intelleader of the E-Filing IWG talks about his experience at CTC2011:
“This was my fourth CTC and overall I found the experience once again very beneficial. The attendance was smaller this year, not a surprise due to budget cutbacks.
Both keynote addresses were fantastic and are worthwhile to view for anyone that wasn’t there (streamline videos of these presentations are available at www.ctc2011.org). There were less breakout sessions than past conferences, and while like other conferences the breakout sessions vary quite a bit from weak to solid, I had some good takeaways from a couple that made the time worthwhile.
The Canadians’ meeting was the most worthwhile session. It was great to get updates on JTAC, CCCT and ACCA and see how greater collaboration is happening amongst these organizations. Hearing about other initiatives across Canada was encouraging and motivating for the work in which I am involved in BC (presentations from this meeting will be posted shortly on the CCCT-CCTJ website).
I found the exhibit floor the most worthwhile time this year. I had a very focused objective looking at solutions for electronic evidence and exhibit management; in discussions with vendors, Centre for Legal and Court Technology consultants (formerly Courtroom 21) and other consultants attending the conference, I met my objective in finalizing the strategy for the BC courts.
Finally, as is the case at most conferences, the networking was a highlight. Over lunches, dinners, coffee, adhoc times between sessions, the discussions with BC colleagues, colleagues from across Canada, and other consultants, I was able to further my thinking in how we need to move forward in using technology in the courts. Patrick Cormier, Robert O’Brian and myself had an engaging discussion on e-Filing and e-Court in general and I think we solved all the problems for courts :-). We certainly came up with lots of ideas for the Intellaction Working Groups to work on!”
External links do not necessarily reflect the views of the Canadian Centre for Court Technology
Comments