Categories
Background

Could we build an Open Source Legal Software Hub

9a98edd9c3ed58d0172f3fdf65b3bfad

One item on my ever-growing Access to Justice agenda is an online hub full of worthy software solutions for legal organizations to use. Ideally, with software that is affordable if not free — and designed to be easily updated & changed. As opposed to software that is proprietary to one company, who, after they sell it to a court or a legal aid group, continues to extract money from them for updating and adapting the software.

Such a hub could set best practices for what tech legal organizations should be deploying. It could guide non-techies as to the essential categories of tech they should be using to manage their cases, interact with clients, and promote efficient and satisfying workflows inside the org. And it could house advice, tutorials, and support for how to use these tools well.

Actually setting up such a hub is not that difficult — just a matter of a website and then some initial content curation:

  • what the essential tech categories should be,
  • what the examples of free or low-priced tech options are, and
  • some guidance as to how to use these.

What’s more challenging is getting the brand of the site elevated enough to reach all of the courts & legal aid groups that need this guidance. Building awareness and engagement — so that the users can find it and then trust it enough to follow through with its resources — that’s a harder undertaking.

Categories
Background

How do people use the Internet for legal services?

I have been working over the past few months on a research paper about how people use the Internet for legal help. I’ve been doing online questionnaires to develop insights into who legal users are — what a core typology of user types are, what their mental models are when searching for legal help for a problem in their lives, and what their preferences are for how to find and comprehend legal help.

I’ve followed those up with task analyses — having users use different legal websites to try to find information & see how they fare and react to various types of website designs.

Though writing is taking me longer than I wish it would, the results are truly fascinating & I’m excited to get them published in the near future. In the meanwhile, here are some of my notebook sketches from my initial plans of what my study would look like.

How do people use the Internet for legal services?How do people use the Internet for legal services? How do people use the Internet for legal services?

If you’re also interested in this topic, or have reading suggestions or thoughts for me — pass them along!

Categories
Current Projects Integration into Community

Integrated Legal-Medical care at health centers

The National Center for Medical-Legal Partnership has a New issue brief on medical-legal partnership and health centers. Marsha Regenstein, PhD, Joel Teitelbaum, JD, LLM, Jessica Sharac, MSc, MPH, and Ei Phyu authored the piece “Medical-Legal Partnership and Health Centers: Addressing Patients’ Health-Harming Civil Legal Needs as Part of Primary Care.” You can download it as a PDF here.

The brief explores the link between social & economic issues — like income, housing, education, employment, legal status, and personal/family stability– and how civil legal aid and health care can combine to provide positive impact on these issues.

Civil legal aid becomes an ‘enabling services’ that allows people who have come in as medical patients to a health care facility to get the appropriate government services and support. Legal aid supplements and reinforces the medical care, by addressing root issues that have led to medical problems. Legal help in hospital help patients to deal with health-harming civil legal needs, like those around housing and utilities.

Medical-legal partnerships train clinicians and health care staff to know enough about the law to spot when a patient has a potential legal issue. Then this health care worker can hand the patient off to an in-house legal worker (who may be part-time or permanently at the facility) to get the legal support for their problem. Sometime the lawyer comes into the medical exam room, sometimes they may schedule a follow up off site.

The majority of patients seen at health centers are living at or below the poverty level, and because of this, they have unmet legal needs — related to housing, public benefits, education — that negatively impact their health. Medical-legal partnership is an approach to health that integrates the expertise of health care, public health and legal professionals and staff to address and prevent these health-harming civil legal needs for patients, clinics and populations. There are currently 60 FQHCs and Look-A-Like health centers that operate medical-legal partnerships with civil legal aid agencies across the United States. In the fall of 2014, HRSA released guidance, which clarified that civil legal aid services may be included in the range of enabling services that health centers may choose to provide to meet the primary care needs of their patients.

This issue brief explores the medical-legal partnership approach to health in the context of health centers. It is intended to help health centers understand the benefits – to patients and to their institutions – of partnerships with civil legal aid agencies, and to introduce additional resources that can help health centers implement these programs.

Categories
Current Projects Training and Info

Ideas for Know Your Rights redesigned

Last night, I helped organize a group of lawyers & designers to kick off a longer design process, about reimagining how we convey Know Your Rights materials to lay people. We had a great mix of people who work on Know Your Rights initiatives as a part of community law groups, legal aid groups, and advocacy orgs. And we had a few designers who are interested in making legal services better.

It was an introductory session — introducing the participants to the design process & the mission of user-centered legal design. But we got to start through developing some new ideas for Know Your Rights initiatives, focusing on certain users, use cases & needs — and then brainstorming out some initial ideas.

I will write up a fuller report later — for now, here are some of the brainstorms!

Picture Picture Picture Picture Picture Picture

Categories
Background

Google offers health info in its Knowledge Graph: what about law?

The Official Google Blog has a post “A remedy for your health-related questions: health info in the Knowledge Graph”. It announces that Google is going to treat certain health-information searches differently from the average search.

If a user searches a query that likely relates to some common health conditions, Google will surface reliable knowledge — set apart from typical search results — to direct the user straight to trustworthy, straightforward answers. Google will tell you what health problem it might be — and what the symptoms and treatments are, and how critical & contagious the disease might be.

Google Health Info - Legal Info 1 - open law lab

This is exciting in itself — but it also could be a great model for legal knowledge searches. I wrote earlier about the potential for Google to be a more usable legal help portal. This model, with trustworthy & clear information surfaced in response to a common query, would work to help people with legal problems.

Here is more from Google on this new health info initiative:

Think of the last time you searched on Google for health information. Maybe you heard a news story about gluten-free diets and pulled up the Google app to ask, “What is celiac disease?” Maybe a co-worker shook your hand and later found out she had pink eye, so you looked up “pink eye” to see whether it’s contagious. Or maybe you were worried about a loved one—like I was, recently, when my infant son Veer fell off a bed in a hotel in rural Vermont, and I was concerned that he might have a concussion. I wasn’t able to search and quickly find the information I urgently needed (and I work at Google!).

Thankfully my son was OK, but the point is this stuff really matters: one in 20 Google searches are for health-related information. And you should find the health information you need more quickly and easily.

So starting in the next few days, when you ask Google about common health conditions, you’ll start getting relevant medical facts right up front from the Knowledge Graph. We’ll show you typical symptoms and treatments, as well as details on how common the condition is—whether it’s critical, if it’s contagious, what ages it affects, and more. For some conditions you’ll also see high-quality illustrations from licensed medical illustrators. Once you get this basic info from Google, you should find it easier to do more research on other sites around the web, or know what questions to ask your doctor.

We worked with a team of medical doctors (led by our own Dr. Kapil Parakh, M.D., MPH, Ph.D.) to carefully compile, curate, and review this information. All of the gathered facts represent real-life clinical knowledge from these doctors and high-quality medical sources across the web, and the information has been checked by medical doctors at Google and the Mayo Clinic for accuracy.

That doesn’t mean these search results are intended as medical advice. We know that cases can vary in severity from person to person, and that there are bound to be exceptions. What we present is intended for informational purposes only—and you should always consult a healthcare professional if you have a medical concern.

But we hope this can empower you in your health decisions by helping you learn more about common conditions. We’re rolling it out over the next few days, in the U.S. in English to start. In the long run, not only do we plan to cover many more medical conditions, but we also want to extend this to other parts of the world. So the next time you need info on frostbite symptoms, or treatments for tennis elbow, or the basics on measles, the Google app will be a better place to start.

Categories
Background

Plain Language & Legal Design

I have been reading through articles documenting how ‘Plain Language’ came to be a standard by which legal communications are judged — and which courts, firms, and companies are willing to invest money and time in. From my limited research, I’ve been able to trace the rise of ‘Plain Language’ as a standard from the late 1970s through the early 1980s, when it became much discussed in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia-New Zealand. Government commissions began to investigate what Plain Language would look like in practice, how much it would offer to the end user of legal documents, and if it was worth investing in.

The conclusion seems to have been a resounding ‘yes’, as Plain Language became a dominant metric against which legal writing, explanations, outreach, and work product is judged. President Clinton mandated that federal agencies author their work using Plain Language techniques. Courts, self-help centers & legal aid groups hire plain language companies to ensure the text they release out to the public meets the Plain Language standard. And firms and corporations put an emphasis on how they offer clarity to their users, with a commitment to Plain Language communications.

Plain language is more than just what words you use to communicate — it is the way in which you compose your sentences, and the tone and voice your communication. It is about making your text more user-friendly by adopting a consciousness of who your target audience is, thinking of how they would best understand what you’re trying to get across, and ensuring that you speak and write in the most direct way to get your point across to this audience in the most succinct yet clear way.

This emphasis on usability is where there is a strong link between the Plain Language standard, and the legal design work that I have been so focused on as late. What I see is that to make a communication user-friendly & usable, we must think of more than just the language we use. It is more than vocabulary choice, sentence structure, tone, and voice.

Plain Language to Legal Design standards by margaret Hagan

Designing for usability of legal communications means thinking of all of the other factors that affect (and potentially enhance) an audience’s comprehension of a communication. Beyond just Plain Language, we must also focus on:

  • Composition of the text on the page: how is it laid out? how many characters go across the line? how is it structured, indented, boxed, and otherwise made visually comprehensible?
  • Interactivity: is the communication staged? can a user get a quickly glanceable version, and then dig selectively into the text for more detailed explanations? Can we use digital tools to make the communication more engaging, customizable, and lively?
  • Visuals: are graphics, illustrations, and symbols used to enhance the user’s understanding? is there a way to shorten the amount of text we present, or to better show priorities and warnings within the text through the use of graphics? Is there a way to ground the text in more context & situational understanding by showing illustrations or photographs?
  • Service flows; what is the role of this communication in a larger service experience of the end user?

Legal Design work could be as powerful as the Plain Language standard has been. My goal is to get more legal organizations invested in making their communications as understandable & engaging as they can. This is both for the sake of the lay person consumer, but also for other lawyers and professionals. Better designed information can enhance the experience of even the most educated person, who is not intimidated by legalese — they don’t necessarily want to read through badly designed legal communications either.

Reading through the descriptions of how Plain Language has gone from movement to standard, I’m inspired to think how we can set more standards, guidelines, and best practices for how legal professionals communicate. I want to see legal orgs invested not just in Plain Language, but in Wholly Better Designed work product — that is Visually Composed, Interactive, Illustrated, and Service-oriented. We need more than just improved language to really make legal communications connect with lay people.

Categories
Background

Why is it so hard to implement social good tech?

Why is implementing good tech so hard - open law lab -Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 4.36.44 PM Why is implementing good tech so hard - open law lab -Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 4.36.36 PM

I came across this video essay by Laura Walker Hudson, the CEO of Social Impact Lab, which houses the open source messaging system Frontline SMS. She speaks of her experience trying to implement scalable implementations of tech-for-good. She profiles why it’s so hard to get projects off the ground — from the complicated tech questions, to getting the human-centered design right, to finding sustainable project partnerships.

Her focus is on implementing tech-based interventions in the developing world, in the context of ICT4D (info/communications tech for development). But the lessons & struggles she’s talking about apply to improving legal services in the US, Canada, Europe and elsewhere.

This is essential watching for anyone working on a project to get good tech pilots off the ground — to help them prepare for working with partners in a healthy way, thinking about long-term sustainability, and navigating decisions about privacy, data, payment models, and engagement of users.

Why is implementing good tech so hard - open law lab -Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 4.36.31 PM

It’s easy to hope that implementing a well-designed, excellent technical solution will go smoothly — but it’s necessary to prepare for the human factors of how to get organizations to change their workflows & mindsets — as well as how to get users onto the platform you’re building.

Why is implementing good tech so hard - open law lab -Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 4.36.11 PM

Watch it to hear some of the common problems, as well as some takeaways to better plan for implementations.

Some of the takeaways:

  • Prep for the many tech choices you’ll have to make — do your research, lay out options, and don’t commit to one before you know that the people who are offering this tech have a sustainable business model & will be maintaining this tech
  • Have an organizational change plan, figure out how your tech will fit in the org’s  & stakeholders’ ecosystem.
  • Know your end users’ context — their literacy, tech access, power access, familiarity with tech — and choose a solution that fits these constraints
  • Have a varied toolkit, and select the right approach for your end users and local context
  • Take care about training. Do not invest in a tech system that will involve lots of heavy training unless you can sustain this. Try to get local ownership so they are bought into it, and trained in the system, so they can do local trainings without you having to do this
  • Provide incentives for local ownership, training, and implementations. Hand off to your project partners as much as you can.

Why is implementing good tech so hard - open law lab -Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 4.35.09 PM

Categories
Background

Wise Design (or why are human systems so screwed up?)

This post is not just for lawyers — it is for people who work in hospitals, banks, insurance companies, government agencies, loan companies, accounting firms — people who work in complex systems that are supposed to be serving lay people.

I propose a new field of Wise Design — to build out tools, principles, and patterns to help normal people make more strategic, smart decisions for themselves while trying to make their way through overwhelming systems.

Where I’m coming from

As I’ve been working on legal design, I’ve been hunting down analogous fields — what other areas outside law can legal professionals draw from to rethink how they provide services? Like a good design-thinker, I’m hungry for cross-pollination.

And what I’ve come to realize is that the same challenge I’m tackling in the legal sector — trying to make it easier for a lay person to understand & to navigate the legal system — runs parallel to so many other complicated systems that humans have set up.

Wise Design - system versus person

What I’m realizing is that the challenge (if not the crisis) around how unusable the legal system is coincides with other human system design challenges. The systems that adults are expected to be able to navigate — insurance, mortgages, health care, taxes, student loans, personal savings, estate planning, visas and immigration, credit card offers and payments — have not been designed for humans.

Wise Design we are embedded in hyper complex systems Wise Design systems are anti user

Most adults — even those well-educated & well-meaning — struggle to figure out how to make their way through these systems. You turn 18 and are expected to be able to deal with these systems — follow their rules, use them to your best interest, walk the straight path through them. But the learning curve is steep, we aren’t trained for them, and usually it’s only after making mistakes and missing opportunities do people figure out how to navigate these systems (if they ever do).

Wise Design - happy birthday adult

We need cross-industry Wise Design

All the work, patterns, insights, principles I’ve been gathering up to guide legal design efforts — it can all be extended, shared & remixed with design for these other human systems. We who are working to make law more accessible need to be partnering with people in these other fields — financial planning, health care empowerment, patient engagement, consumer protection.

We are all fighting parallel battles — how to make life more livable for normal people. How to help them make better decisions for themselves, to protect their interests in complex systems. How to make these relatively dreary (or, in worse cases, horribly frustrating) parts of our lives — taxes, insurance, loans, litigation, accounting, medical care, banking — less frustrating, confusing, and punitive.

Wise Design - what if we used design to make systems more navigable

Human-centered design has great potential here, to transform both the front-end of these systems (how we people interact with them) and the back-end of them too (how the systems are actually structured, the rules and procedures that comprise them). What I’d love to see is cross-discipline collaborations, to build better front-end tools and back-end systems and then share best practices among these different fields.

Wise Design - this is a branch of design called wise design

I’m hoping to link the work of legal design, all focused on making legal systems more usable & user-friendly, into a larger movement of Wise Design.

Innovations that Intuit comes up with to make filing taxes easier should be borrowed and used to make it easier to choose the right health insurance. Great insights and experience designs that hospitals create to guide patients through a treatment plan should be remixed into navigation tools for a litigant going through a family law case.

There needs to be a Wise Design coalition — sharing code, design, and momentum. We in the legal sector need to scout out and partner with our counterparts in other industries —  to figure out together how to make human systems more user-centered and how to empower people to make more strategic, rewarding decisions.

And my other hope with a Wise Design movement is to attract all those wonderfully creative designers & developers who are currently working on interesting consumer-based challenges (how do we get people to buy things, love products so much they will use them and spend money on them?) and persuade them to work on these larger systems challenges.  We need more creativity & experimentation on how to help people deal with complex information and make smart decisions.

Wise Design - A design typology

This post has been brewing for a while — I’m interested in your thoughts, especially on how we in the legal world can build better partnerships from other sectors & recruit more creatives and entrepreneurs to work on these challenges.

Categories
Background

What would you spend $10 million on for Access to Justice?

Access to Justice - what would you spend 10 million dollars on

I made another visual based on a short questionnaire I ran back in November-December last year, on people’s thoughts on Access to Justice. Earlier visuals of the questionnaire responses are here (Is there a coherent Access to Justice Movement?) and here (What’s going wrong with the Access to Justice Movement?)

I asked respondents where they would spend a hypothetical $10 million on Access, to see what kind of ideas & priorities would emerge. Here are the responses.

Access to Justice - where would you spend 10 million

You can see some clear priorities emerging:

  1. Experimentation in new legal services
  2. Scaling up tech-based legal platforms to cover more jurisdictions, reach more users
  3. Providing more one-to-one assistance to people going through legal processes
  4. Public legal education
  5. Establishing a ‘Brand’ for legal services

If you have other projects that you would fund with $10 million, leave your thoughts in the comments.  There must be other agenda points, add them to this first collection of funding priorities.

Categories
Ideabook Training and Info

Law content on Wikipedia

Last week, I was a facilitator at a Shaping Davos design thinking workshop at Stanford’s d.school.  Several local non-profits had brought some big social impact challenges they’re facing — around gentrification, housing, food waste, community-building, and information access.

Margaret Hagan - Wikipedia workshop - 2015-01-22 19.46.19

Then small groups of engineers, public policy-makers, business people, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and other professionals spent 2 hours brainstorming & prototyping possible solutions to these challenges. Our goal wasn’t to solve the problem then and there, but rather to start scoping target areas for future work and laying out promising directions for solutions.

I was working with Wikimedia (the non-profit that runs Wikipedia among other projects) on the challenge of how it can get more content from more kinds of people — especially people in the Global South — included on Wikipedia.Margaret Hagan - Wikipedia workshop - 2015-01-22 20.18.08

The group ended up generating some interesting ways to make contributing to Wikipedia more lightweight, multimedia, and interactive.  Many of them tied back to work I had done a few years ago on how the UN could support more communication & knowledge-sharing among refugees. But the really interesting conversation happened after the official event ended, and I got to speak to the UX designer from Wikimedia who was attending the event.

I inquired about how we might be able to get more legal content onto Wikipedia. Since my main focus these days is how the Internet can be a better legal service-provider, I have been thinking of how to rope Google & Wikipedia into more thoughtful efforts to show high-quality, localized, responsible legal information to lay people searching online about legal problems.

If Wikipedia entries are nearly always the top hits of a Google Search — and especially as their content is given prime real estate in highlighted boxes on many searches thanks to Google’s Knowledge Graph — wouldn’t it be wonderful if there were more high quality Wikipedia entries on legal matters?

I’m thinking especially of 2 use cases, where legal content on Wikipedia could be terrifically helpful:

  1. The law student who is trying to learn concepts, cases, and theories — and wants to do this with online content and references rather than the standard case book. (This was me as a law student — I was so disappointed to see how little legal commentary and expertise Wikipedia had to offer on what I was studying).
  2. The lay person searching for context & orientation for a legal problem that has cropped up in her life.  She is not necessarily looking to file papers, find a lawyer, or take any other concrete step along a legal process. Rather, she is trying to get literate in a legal topic & start to understand what this part of the legal world is about — and hopefully find links to jurisdiction-specific materials, if not actual legal providers.

Talking with Wikimedia’s UX designer, it seems there are several ways to get higher quality legal content onto Wikipedia, for both these types of users.

  • Get active inside the WikiProject Law to direct the creation of more legal content
  • Create a game experience over Wikipedia to feed and edit more content
  • Make Wikipedia content creation part of law school curriculum

One way is to be active inside the WikiProject on Law.  This is a collection of Wikipedia users who are trying to generate more quality content about law — covering everything from public policy to philosophy as it relates to law. Open Law Lab - Legal content on Wikipedia - WikiProject Law

If I — or you — wanted to join this WikiProject, we could help set out an agenda of what kind of legal pages should be created, and what the priority for content development should be.  The community is open to applications. New members can add to the group’s collective to-do list & direct content creation.

Another possibility for getting more law on Wikipedia is to build a new interface or app on top of Wikipedia.  One model for this is The Wiki Game.  A 3rd party developer built a web & app game on top of Wikipedia, that allows for content-consumption & -creation via quick, lightweight games.

Open Law Lab - Legal content on Wikipedia - The Wiki Game

This kind of venture would take some more work & inspiration. What would a gamefied experience of getting people to submit legal content to Wikipedia look like? Or could we gamify the checking, tagging, and editing of possible legal content? There could be a very engaging experience here, but I don’t have any precise thoughts on how something like ‘The Wiki Game’ could be adapted to legal content.

And the final idea — probably fairly feasible — is to integrate Wikipedia content creation into law school curriculum.  Could 1Ls be assigned the creation of Wikipedia articles for the topics and cases they’re studying? It would be nice to see all of law students’ study material be made open-source and usable by the crowd online.