Access to Justice and Technology Ronald W. Staudt

1. Access to Justice and TechnologyRonald W. Staudt Class 1: Introduction August 26, 2004

2. Access to Justice and Technology • Mechanics • Justice Web Collaboratory • Will Hornsby’s Article

3. Access to Justice and Technology • Seating Chart • Course Website • Course Information • Class attendance • Assignments • Grading • Class topics • Paper topics • Web Exercise

4. What is the JWC? Dedicated to improving access to justice Leveraging web technology Bringing different organizations together for a common purpose

5. JWC Major Projects • Illinois Technology Center for Law and Public Interest (ITC) www.itcweb.org • Illinois state-wide coalition of legal services providers, foundations and and bar associations • Internet portal development, access to justice and legal services for low income individuals • Access to Justice (A2J) www.judgelink.org/a2j/ • Interdisciplinary study of self represented litigants • A2J prototype construction and testing • Daley Center Self Help Web Desk • A2J Author Project with CALI funded by the State Justice Institute • Cook County Illinois, Lake County, Illinois • Maryland • California

6. JWC Major Projects – Research Ideas • Access to Justice (A2J) www.judgelink.org/a2j/ • Unique experiment – potential to change courts? • Customer service; digital infrastructure; AI… • Interdisciplinary reflections • Stories we experienced during the field research • Student participation in new models, client interaction… • Illinois Technology Center for Law and Public Interest (ITC) www.itcweb.org • Student involvement in public service, clinical and writing opportunities – curriculum innovation… • Knowledge management, practice impact of web tools …

7. Access to Justice:A Compelling Challenge • Statewide A2J Portals • Massive Need • LSC turns to technology • Court Redesign • Courts left behind • Pro se explosion

8. The Need 35,000,000 Americans live in households with income below the poverty level 10,000,000 more are potentially eligible for legal services with income between 100% - 125% of poverty levels BizCase

9. Need for Legal Services LSC agencies closed 1,000,000 cases for low income clients in 1999 Still: 80% of the Poor and Working Poor in the United States Do Not Have Access to Legal Services BizCase

10. LSC- Technology Initiative Grants • As a result of the additional $4.25 million LSC received in FY 2000 for technology initiatives, our Office of Program Performance established the Technology Initiative Grants ("TIG") Program. …[W]e identified three priorities for proposals: • showcase how a complete package of technology tools can help indigent clients with access to legal services and self-help information; • new and innovative uses of technology for assisting clients; and • promote the linkage of offices to provide a more cohesive delivery system.

11. Unprecedented statewide collaboration • To increase access to justice for low income and disadvantaged persons through innovative use of technology to train, support, and educate legal aid providers, pro bono attorneys, and the public. • Partners: Cabrini Green Legal Aid ClinicIllinois Bar Foundation CARPLSChicago-Kent College of Law/IIT The Chicago Bar FoundationNational Center on Poverty Law, Inc. Prairie State Legal Services Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago Southern Illinois University School of Law-Self Help Center

12. Producers Portals Customers IllinoisLegalAid Site • Courthouse • Legal Aid • Office • Social • Service • Agency • Law School • Clinics & • Libraries • Public • Libraries • Home Authors & Experts ITCweb.org IllinoisProBono Site CMS IllinoisLawHelp Site Managers & Editors

13. Producers Portals Customers IllinoisLegalAid Site • Courthouse • Legal Aid • Office • Social • Service • Agency • Law School • Clinics & • Libraries • Public • Libraries • Home Authors & Experts ITCweb.org IllinoisProBono Site CMS IllinoisLawHelp Site Managers & Editors

18. Producers Portals Customers IllinoisLegalAid Site • Courthouse • Legal Aid • Office • Social • Service • Agency • Law School • Clinics & • Libraries • Public • Libraries • Home Authors & Experts ITCweb.org IllinoisProBono Site CMS IllinoisLawHelp Site Managers & Editors

20. Producers Portals Customers IllinoisLegalAid Site • Courthouse • Legal Aid • Office • Social • Service • Agency • Law School • Clinics & • Libraries • Public • Libraries • Home Authors & Experts ITCweb.org IllinoisProBono Site CMS IllinoisLawHelp Site Managers & Editors

22. Access to Justice Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants: A consumer based approach

23. Barriers Facing Consumers Seeking Access to Courts • Too expensive: • Complexity -- 50% attribute excessive costs to complexity • Lawyers -- 85% of Americans attribute excessive costs to attorneys • Lack of information about processes • Lack of Legal Representation • Distrust of Lawyers

25. Barriers to Re-engineering Courts • Decentralized Funding and Control • Lack of Resources • Time Constraints • Lack of Technical Know-how • System Constraints

27. Access to JusticeFunding Partners • State Justice Institute • Open Society Institute • Center for Access to the Courts Through Technology • Preparing Global Leaders in the Heart of America Pritzker/Galvin Match Project Partners • National Center for State Courts • Chicago-Kent College of Law • Institute of Design • Part 2 – CALI, AOC in California, Maryland JN

28. Project Staging • PHASE 1, FALL 2000:Identify the major barriers to access to justice by litigants without lawyers • PHASE 2, SPRING 2001:Employ the latest in system design methodology to redesign the process • PHASE 3, 2001-2002:Translate conceptual models into an Internet based prototype

29. Phase 1 & 2 • Shadow the Customer: Ethnographic research in 5 courts, California, Delaware, Colorado & Illinois • what do people want from courts, • what do they do in the courthouse • Design new solutions: Structured Workshop to design new solutions from the customers’ perspective • Charter, Defining Statements, Design Factors, Function Structure, Information Structure and • 53 Solution Elements in a System Structure • Report available at http://www.judgelink.org/a2j/ and in a book released this summer.

30. Phase 3: Prototype Developmentwww.judgelink.org/A2J/ • Prototype Proof of Concept and Toolkit • Traveling down a guided path • Easy to use interface • Personal guide • Map • Personal Folder and Document List • Operational Prototype – Simple Illinois Divorce

31. Judgelink.org\A2J\prototypes\ Cook County Illinois Joint Simplified Dissolution of Marriage “Guide me” w/ HotDocs linkage

37. Access To Justice Website Customer Data XML XML E-Filing at Courthouse Server Document Assembly Server (LEXISNEXIS HotDocs OnLine)

38. Shift to the Digital ParadigmWill Hornsby • Unmet need • Two tiers of law practice: corporate/institutional clients & personal plight lawyers • Pro se and unbundling • Inefficiencies of traditional model and digital design efficiencies

39. Inefficiencies of traditional model and digital design efficiencies • Client development • Intake and screening • Client education • Form preparation • Geographical barriers • Ongoing client communication • Dispute resolution • Ancillary businesses

40. What is Unbundling? • “The client is in charge of selecting one of several discrete lawyering tasks contained within the full-service package.” • Forrest Mosten

41. Why do we care? • Access to Justice remains a serious problem in the US and “…by providing limited service representation or ‘unbundled’ services in the area of civil law [we may be able to] stretch limited ‘free’ services and make for cost services affordable to a larger segment of our society. Kim Prochnau King County Superior Court Administrator

42. Next Class • Unmet need and self represented litigants Required Reading • Deborah L. Rhode, Professionalism in Perspective: Alternative Approaches to Nonlawyer Practice, 1 J. Inst. Stud. Leg. Eth. 197 (1996). • ABA Legal Needs Study • Illinois Legal Needs Study Recommended Reading • Owen, Staudt & Pedwell, Access to Justice: Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants (2002).