The institutionalization of technologies in the Malaysian judicial setting is conducted through e-Court application since 2009, in line with the government inspiration of Vision 2020. The Case Management System, Electronic Filing System and video recording system are employed to decrease “backlog” of cases & accelerate existing cases of administration, which give a facelift to Malaysian judiciary reputation. However, the system is not implemented properly because e-courd applications do not proceed according to a system to reduce disaster preparedness. The main objective of the current study is to formulate a “sustainable risk management framework” for e-court records three layers. The first layer keeps records of management risks & life cycle as well as risk management procedure. The second layer fulfils four legal requirements, i.e., ISO, legislation, national and organization policy rely upon sustainability, backup process, and risk administration. And third layer, the jurisdiction-specific e-court risk administration system, straightens the risk of noncompliance resulting in damaging consequences. Numerous E-court “related conceptions” are addressed e.g., modify administration and ICT infrastructure. The proposed sustainable risk management framework for electronic court records management is proposed to be tested in other jurisdictions and other settings because it relates to overall risk countrywide and global stage.

1. Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A., & Noveck, B. (2006). Courtroom applications of virtual environments, immersive virtual environments, and collaborative virtual environments. Law & Policy, 28(2), 249-270. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2006.00226.x
2. Bhatt, J. K. (2005). Role of information technology in the Malaysian judicial system: Issues and current trends. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 19(2), 199-208.https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600860500131614
3. Bettina, B. P. (2007). The nuts and bits of technology in the courtroom. retrieved from https://goo.gl/Q2pBBx
4. Contini, F., & Cordella, A. (2007). Information system and information infrastructure deployment: the hallenge of the Italian e -justice approach. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(1), 43-52.
5. Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. (2009). ICT and innovation in the public sector: European studies in the making of e -government. London, UK: Macmillan.   PMCid:PMC2789358
6. Cranfield School of Management (2011). Innovation in justice new delivery models and better outcomes. Cranfiled University, UK.
7. Fabri, M., & Contini, F. (2001). Justice and technology in Europe: How ICT is changing the judicial business. Kluwer Law International.   PMCid:PMC1422028
8. Galves, F. (2000). Where the not-so-wild things are: computers in the courtroom, the federal rules of evidence, and the need for institution al reform and more judicial acceptance. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 13(2), 165-178.
9. Hall, D. J. (2009). Journey towards Court Excellence: Trends and Practices to Meet the Future. The South Texas Law Review, 51, 935-
   938.
10. Ibarrola, C., & Liz, R. (2012). Analysis of ICT in the strategic modernization programme of the paraguayan Supreme Court. Master thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch: ZA. URL: https://goo.gl/nsbUfr.
11. Lanzara, G. F., & Patriotta, G. (2001). Technology and the courtroom: An inquiry into knowledge making in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 943-971.https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00267
12. Lederer, F. I. (2004). Courtroom technology: for trial lawyers, the future is now. Criminal Justice, 19(1), 14-21.
13. Lederer, F. I. (1999). The road to the virtual courtroom? A consideration of today’s–and tomorrow’s–high-technology courtrooms. South Carolina Law Review, 50, 799-819.
14. Malaysian Administrative Modernization and Management Planning Unit (2012). URL: https://goo.gl/oZzgjE.
15. National Centre for State Courts (2009). Future trends in state courts 2009.
16. Quigley, M. (2010). Courtroom technology and legal ethics. Report submitted for fulfillment of king scholar program, Michigan
    College University, Michigan, US. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/WeIirj
17. Reiling, D. (2010). Technology for justice. How information technology can support judicial reform (p. 310). Leiden University Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.5117/9789087280710
18. Saman, W. S. A. (2015). A framework for sustainable electronic court records management system’, CARE -RISK:UK- Malaysia partnership (capacity building to reduce disaster risk in the UK and Malaysia). Universiti Teknology Malaysia, Johor Bahru: MY.
19. Saman, W. S., & Haider, A. (2011). The implementation of electronic records management system: A case study in Malaysian judicia ry. paper no. 170. URL: https://goo.gl/7Zverf.
20. Saman, W. S., & Haider, A. (2013). E-Shariah: Information and communication technologies for Shariah court management. Leegal Information Management, 13(2), 94-106.https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1472669613000248
21. Schmidt, A. (2007). IT and the judiciary in the Netherlands – A state of affairs. Computer Law & Security Review, 23(5), 453-460. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2007.03.006
22. Wiggins, E. C. (2006). The courtroom of the future is here: introduction to emerging technologies in the legal system. Law & Policy, 28(2), 182-191. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2006.00222.x

Mohd Saman, W. S. W., Abdullah, N. C., Baba, N., Shaifuddin, N., & Mokhtar, W. N. H. W. (2015).Sustainable electronic court records risk management: Conceptions and development of framework. International Journal of Business and Administrative Studies, 1(1 ), 42-48.