March 14, 1997 
 
Appellate Court and Circuit Administration Division 
ATTN: ABA Citation Resolution 
Suite 4-512 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 
Washington, DC 20544 
 
         Re: Comments of Public Citizen Litigation Group on 
                       ABA Citation Resolution 
 
     Public Citizen Litigation Group hereby submits its comments in 
support of the adoption of a standard citation format as recommended 
by the American Bar Association. 
 
     Public Citizen Litigation Group is a ten attorney public 
interest law firm founded in 1972 by Ralph Nader and Alan Morrison. 
Litigation Group attorneys handle cases in virtually every federal 
circuit, in a number of state courts, and before several federal 
agencies. Of particular interest here, our firm has served as 
principal counsel in litigation establishing that electronic records, 
because of their unique content and characteristics, must be managed 
and maintained by federal agencies as records under the Federal 
Records Act, and must be made available to the public under the 
Freedom of Information Act. /1/ 
 
     Access to the most recent federal decisions is critical to our 
practice. Minimizing the cost of legal research and publications is 
also critical to our organization. Our legal services are provided to 
individuals and organizations on a pro bono basis and are funded by 
donations to Public Citizen, a nonprofit membership organization 
dedicated to advocacy on issues of consumer welfare, health and 
safety, and open government. 
 
     Consequently, our firm has taken advantage of the availability 
of federal court decisions in electronic format through the Internet 
and other on-line services. Our attorneys regularly download recent 
decisions by federal circuit courts, and receive updates on the 
decisions of the Supreme Court by electronic mail within a few hours 
of the decisions being issued. We also obtain information on district 
court dockets on-line, and research state court decisions, statutes, 
and rules using noncommercial, government-sponsored on-line services 
that make these authorities available in electronic format. The 
electronic dissemination of court decisions has made opinions 
available much more quickly and at lower costs. Before the courts 
began making these materials available on-line, we would not be able 
to obtain access to an important decision in another circuit court, 
even in a case that we litigated, without incurring substantial costs 
for overnight delivery, telecopying, or access to commercial 
databases. Moreover, because research using on-line services such as 
Lexis [copyright] or Westlaw [copyright] is extremely expensive, we 
strive to use these services only after we have exhausted less costly 
methods of research. The dissemination off opinions in electronic 
format helps us to reduce our use of costly commercial services and, 
consequently, makes legal research more efficient.

     However, the usefulness of court opinions in electronic form, 
whether disseminated by courts or by commercial services, is 
currently handicapped by the lack of a standardized citation system 
for electronic documents. As the report accompanying the ABA 
resolution points out, the current citation system is tied to 
publications in paper format and is not compatible with effective 
citation of electronic documents. Moreover, page references are 
virtually useless for electronic documents. These problems will 
become more acute as lawyers and the public increasingly conduct 
research and read materials using computers. Consequently, it is in 
the interest of the courts, the bar, and the public for the courts to 
adopt a universal standard for citation that can be used without 
regard to the format in which the reader is viewing the opinion. 
 
     We believe that the benefits of a universal citation system to 
everyone will be substantial. Even where only paper documents are 
concerned, the absence of a standard citation system sometimes causes 
needless expense and duplication, particularly in specialized areas 
of the law, because members of the bar may not be using the same 
publication as the court. /2/ The growing use of both electronic and 
paper formats underscores the need for a universal citation system 
that will provide an adequate means to locate a decision, regardless 
of the format or publication that the reader has available. Moreover, 
adoption of a universal format by the courts will encourage the 
growth of more competition in the publication and dissemination of 
judicial decisions in all formats. 
 
     The cost to the courts of adopting the ABA's proposed citation 
system will be minimal. The sequential numbering of decisions as they 
are issued is easily accomplished, and the sequential numbering of 
paragraphs required by the proposal can be done automatically using 
the word processing software already employed by the federal courts. 
Indeed, we know from experience that such numbering is not difficult. 
In recent years, we have sometimes been ordered to submit copies of 
documents to federal courts in electronic format and, as part 
preparing these submissions, have been required to modify the 
document in a manner that is substantially equivalent to the 
sequential numbering contemplated by the ABA proposal. Although 
neither our computer equipment nor our software is sophisticated by 
current standards, we found that making these modifications is not 
difficult and can be performed automatically. Moreover, once the 
programming for formatting documents to comply with the proposed 
format is created, this programming can be used to number the 
paragraphs for subsequent opinions without imposing any additional 
burden on the court or its administrative staff. 
 
     In short, it is clear that court opinions are now used in both 
electronic and paper formats, and the use of electronic formats will 
continue to grow. The citation systems currently in use are not 
designed to address this situation, and a universal citation system 
designed to promote the use of both formats will benefit the courts, 
the bar, and the public by increasing access to judicial opinions and 
reducing costs. The ABA has proposed a thoughtful, efficient, and 
practical method for citation that is designed to be independent of 
format, is superior to existing systems, and involves virtually no 
incremental costs. We urge that the Judicial Conference adopt the 
proposed citation system and require all case authorities to be cited 
in accordance with the ABA proposal. The requirement to use this 
universal citation should be phased-in over a reasonable period of 
time to permit courts and the bar to become familiar with the new 
system. 

                                   Respectfully submitted, 
 
                                   Michael E. Tankersley 
                                   Alan B. Morrison 
                                   Public Citizen Litigation Group 
                                   1600 20th Street, NW 
                                   Washington, DC 20009 
                                   (202) 588-1000 
 
                              FOOTNOTES

     /1/ See Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, 1 F.3d 
1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993). 

     /2/ For example, the Rules for the Superior Court of the 
District of Columbia require that citations to decisions of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
include both the volume and page number of the decision in U.S. App. 
D.C. and the Federal Reporter. The libraries of many practitioners, 
however, contain only the Federal Reporter, and therefore the members 
of the bar must make a special effort to include parallel citations 
for the version of the decision in U.S. App. D.C. 

                          END OF FOOTNOTES