Categories
Background

Law’s PDF Problem (a short manifesto)

No Pdfs for legal information online - by Margaret Hagan - Open Law Lab-02
As I’ve ventured into the world of public legal education — helping lay people figure out and navigate their legal problems — I keep hitting my head against one thorny wall over & again.

Materials are buried in PDFs.

Excellent cartoon stories telling immigrants how to deal with the government are only available in PDFs. Know your rights explainers are presented in unsearchable PDFs. Walk-throughs of a legal process are presented in static, hundred-page long PDFs.

No Pdfs for legal information online - by Margaret Hagan - Open Law Lab-03

People do not like PDFs. They serve a very limited purpose — they keep the information frozen in the exact design that the author created, and let the author save some time up-front by merely having to upload the PDF to the web. But it puts the onus & the pain on the user.

The user has to make sure their browser can properly open & display the PDF. The user has to try to find their way through the PDF, hoping that the text is searchable, and then deal with the pain of searching through to find the information she is actually looking for. The user can’t easily clip out information to save for later, because the text will be wonky & full of bizarre characters if it’s copy-able at all.

And if the user is on mobile — which, users increasingly are — then PDFs are the worst. PDFs are not responsive, making them so difficult to look at on a mobile screen they are virtually useless.

PDFs are not user-friendly, and public-facing legal organizations should stop using them immediately. Sure, keep a PDF version up online for the *very* limited use case of a person wanting to print off a copy of the information and distribute it in its original author formatting.

But the vast majority of use cases for online legal information are people trying to get a specific clip of information that they can find easily, intake easily, and then save for future reference easily. PDFs don’t allow for any of this.

No Pdfs for legal information online - by Margaret Hagan - Open Law Lab-04

Please, legal authors & publishers of great content, unbury your content — let it free — make it usable for your target audiences. Take the text and images out of the pdf, and lay it out in a webpage with HTML.

It is not hard. It is worth the investment. It is a very quick & low-cost solution to the horrible PDF problem of public legal education. And you the legal organization will get higher Google search result placement if you liberate your text out of its frozen, buried PDF pile and onto lively, usable, searchable web pages.

To incentivize some change on this topic, I am thinking of naming names to shame groups that are serial PDF-buriers. Or giving some kind of reward badge to those organizations that actually present their information in easy-to-use formats — who take an Anti-PDF approach to sharing useful legal information. Something to get a movement away from this anti-user reliance on PDFs to communicate information.

No Pdfs for legal information online - by Margaret Hagan-01

Any thoughts on how to get change here — or other thoughts on how to better get legal information out of experts’ heads/computers/PDFs and out available to lay people?

Categories
Background

What’s going wrong with the Access to Justice movement?

At the end of November 2014, I published a short survey on this site, asking respondents to weigh in on the ‘Access to Justice movement’ (if we can speak of one at all, as if it were a cohesive thing). I’ve published some of their responses in an earlier post, and here is another visual of responses — this time on the topic of what’s going wrong with Access to Justice work.

Respondents are discussing mostly the US & Canadian contexts. I’ve pulled out some of the themes that emerged from the quotes.

Access to Justice - What's going wrong with the legal services movement

To repeat these themes here, as pain points for future design & development work to focus on:

  1. Regulation chills experimentation & new efforts.
  2. A lack of scaling of good solutions — and a lack of central leadership to push & spread good ideas, practices, tech.
  3. Mis-framing of what the targets for work should be — aiming either too blue-sky (not viable or feasible) or too small-scale (looking at band-aid solutions rather than true resolutions)
  4. Lack of user-centered projects. The people creating and implementing new ideas for access are not tied into the end-users (the lay people who need more access). The stakeholders who are involved in what new projects are piloted & supported are motivated so much by self-interest that they aren’t delivering the right kind of solutions.
  5. Lack of public engagement. The end-users aren’t involved in the movement (or even very aware of it).

This shortlist can be used in future design workshops & hackathons — a hitlist for us to target as we work to make a proper, robust, impactful Access to Justice movement.

Categories
Background

Can we use TV-law-love to improve real-life legal services?

Internet as legal help - why do we love to watch law and hate it in real life - color

I have been writing up my findings from a recent research study I did, on how lay people use the Internet to respond to legal problems that crop up in their lives.  I’m doing this as part of a longer design research inquiry, to develop best practices, guiding standards, and new models for online legal help resources.

One section of my research was asking my participants about their relationship with law. My intention was to find what the mental model & frameworks are in play, when they interpret their legal problem into an Internet search query, and as they sift through possible resources and decide which (if any) to trust and use.

In this block of questions, I asked participants to rank their general interest in learning more law, and to explain their response. I’ve been slightly surprised by how high one camp of people’s self-professed interest in learning law have been. One distinct group of respondents expressed an interest akin to:

‘I always thought I would have enjoyed going to law school, but I didn’t go’,

‘I want to understand the rules that apply to me and be prepared for situations that might come up’.

‘Law is really interesting, and I’m curious to know more.’

This is opposed to the other distinct (but much smaller) group of respondents who declare a firm disinterest in anything law.  This type of participant declared with certainty,

‘I don’t like law,’

‘I have no interest in law or anything about it,’ or

‘Doesn’t mean much to me.’

What I’m interested in is the potential to tap into the first group’s self-professed curiosity, if not fascination, with the legal system.  Even if most of them ranked their opinion of lawyers very low, they ranked their opinion of the legal system much higher.  They don’t want to be lawyers, but they want to be smart in this area & have an appetite for learning more. Some people tied their interest in law directly to a wish to be able to solve their own future legal problems, but many professed a general curiosity.

This leads me to hypothesize that there is a Law-as-Entertainment mental model for legal help resources to be tapping into.  For the users who are curious about learning more law, they also love consuming legal shows. When I asked the participants where they had learned law from, television was the number two source of legal information that people identified (just behind the Internet).  The interested-in-law group is consuming lots of fictional legal narratives on tv (if not also podcasts now…).

So my question becomes: How could we design legal help sites that tap into this one user group’s mixture of love of legal narratives,  plus legal curiosity & appetite to be ‘law smart’? 

Our current model of self-help, government, and even for-profit legal sites tend to take a ‘Reference Book’ as their model.  List out all the resources, let people browse or search their way to the right topic, and then tell them lots of information on this topic through text descriptions.  It is like looking into an encyclopedia or dictionary.

Could we remix this very dry experience — or just reframe it with subtle cues, phrasings, imagery, and interactions — to tap into more positive and rich mental models?  If people enjoy watching legal procedurals and dramas so much, can we borrow some elements from them to make online legal resources more engaging?

I’m not thinking full-blown dramatic narratives or character development.  But can we use more subtle & resource-light ways to make legal info resources more engaging? Some ideas:

  • Putting more faces, images, and visuals along with the text
  • Instead of having point by point descriptions of legal procedures, have annotated storyboards
  • Give sample, fictionalized anecdote versions of the legal info alongside the very functional, practical run-downs of info
  • Have interactive, game-like paths through the information, revealing it selectively & responsively, rather than all at once
  • Group info into a kind of narrative arc: that  about the background context, about the conflict, and about resolution, mimicking a standard storyline arc, and give the user the motivation to carry through this storyline themselves
  • Make Goofus/Gallant examples for legal procedure — how a person ideally would follow the procedure, versus a less-than-ideal path (what you could do wrong, how you could fall into common mistakes)

This is an initial brainstorm, possible directions with which to change or supplement the Reference Book model of legal resources.  Have you seen any good models in this direction, or do you have any ideas along this line?

Categories
Background

Is the Internet the place for legal help?

I’m working this week on pulling together an academic paper I’ve been writing on best practices & design standards for online legal resource sites, aimed at helping lay people begin to address a legal problem that’s cropped up in their life.

Internet for legal help illustration - by Margaret Hagan

In my literature review, I keep circling back to articles coming out of University College London, which has done a large amount of quantitative & qualitative study of tech-based legal resources. These studies tend to be fairly skeptical of tech’s potential to help people actually resolve their legal issues.

The article Just a phone call away: Is telephone advice enough? from Nigel Balmer, Marisol Smith, Catrina Denvir and Ash Patel, compares the efficiency & quality of the experience of legal help given face to face, versus that provided over the telephone. It finds that telephone-based advice takes significantly longer than face to face.

It also runs down a shortlist of advantages & drawbacks of tech-based legal help. Tech-based legal help tools offer some main advantages to face-to-face services:

  • immediacy
  • convenience, enhances ease of access
  • lower cost to the service providers

Tech-based legal help may offer advantages to those users who have certain constraints:

  • mobility issues,
  • rural homes,
  • time pressures,
  • caring responsibilities,
  • without private transport

But it may not serve others:

  • those with difficulty communicating their needs and situation
  • those without good English language skills
  • those who don’t have access to tech in a private setting

Other article from UCL researchers dig into specific demographics’ use of tech-based legal help.  These pieces try to deflate the notion that the Internet will change access to justice in a major way, by looking into the limitations of how various groups engage (or do not) internet-based help.

The article Portal or pot hole? Exploring how older people use the ‘information superhighway’ for advice relating to problems with a legal dimension considers how people over 60 search the Internet for help — finding that most of this population in the UK do not use the Internet to find help, except for the ‘young aging’ who are more willing to try tech-based solutions.

On the other end of the age spectrum, the article Surfing the web – Recreation or resource? Exploring how young people in the UK use the Internet as an advice portal for problems with a legal dimension finds that even if young people in the UK have grown up with more technology in their lives, many still do not know how to effectively access legal help online.

The UCL researchers seem to be circling around skepticism about the promise of the Internet to revolutionize access to justice. When they look at UK data sets about lay people’s use of Internet & phone-based resources, they find many shortcomings.  Some of them are about users’ general lack of technological literacy & comfort, some of them are about the difficulty for a tech-literate person to navigate the Internet to effectively find relevant & rich help.

To me, this means that we should not stake all our work on exclusively Internet-based resources — but that we should still be investing a much larger amount of research, money & development into making the Internet more usable as a legal resource.  This means not only making individual legal help websites better designed — but also making search portals (especially Google) more intelligent in getting people’s search queries diagnosed as legal ones, and then dispatching them to public, non-profit sources of information that fit their jurisdiction & their situation.

Have you read any good research either examining the status quo of how lay people use the Internet for legal help — or about what new concepts, models, and requirements are for innovation in online legal help?  Send it along!

 

Categories
Current Projects Dispute Resolution

Court Innovations: tech-based platform for improving court users’ experience

Court Innovations - On;ine court project - open law lab - Screen Shot 2014-12-18 at 1.25.48 PM

There is an interesting court redesign organization that’s come out of the University of Michigan Law School.  There is an Online Court Project that Univ. of Michigan has funded, and developed through the company Court Innovations, Inc.

I had written about it previously when my colleague Briane had mentioned an initial write-up of it on University of Michgan’s site.  Now the project has been piloted in two different Michigan courts, after having spun out of the Law School into the start-up Court Innovations.

The project is building a tech-based platform for litigants to resolve their problems online, rather than having to come into court.

Court Innovations is developing and implementing online negotiation systems for courts and constituents.

Court Innovations’ online solutions enable you to extend your court to:

Provide fast, efficient, online resolution options for litigants charged with relatively minor offenses.

Help litigants with outstanding issues to understand their options and navigate the court online without needing to hire an attorney.

We are setting up our technology in courts today – contact us to learn more about how our innovative approach can extend your court to increase access to justice in your community.

The platform will use Online Dispute Resolution patterns to have litigants interact with the court using online technology.  People who face relatively small charges can contact judges and prosecutors to try to resolve their case without having to come physically to court.Court Innovations - On;ine court project - open law lab - Screen Shot 2014-12-19 at 2.00.22 PM

Right now, the Project lets the user try to negotiate a warrant or a traffic ticket.

Court Innovations - open law lab - Screen Shot 2014-12-19 at 2.06.31 PM Court Innovations - open law lab - Screen Shot 2014-12-19 at 2.06.43 PM

If the user doesn’t want to negotiate, they can pay the fine directly, or opt to go to court.  They can also learn more about their options to make better choices & prep.

Court Innovations - On;ine court project - open law lab - Screen Shot 2014-12-19 at 2.00.38 PM

Michigan Law’s publication The Law Quandrangle has posted an article, “Transforming What It Means to ‘Go to Court’.” describing the formation of the Project & its development.

By Jared Wadley and Katie Vloet

What if your day in court didn’t have to be in court?

That’s the idea that led Michigan Law Professor J.J. Prescott and Ben Gubernick, ’11, his former student, to invent a first-of-its-kind technology that helps people who have been charged with minor offenses interact with courts online, at any time of day, without needing to hire an attorney.

The software provides a way for litigants with issues ranging from unpaid fines to minor criminal or civil infractions, including traffic tickets, to communicate directly with judges and prosecutors to find mutually agreeable ways to resolve their cases.

Ben Gubernick, ‘11; CEO MJ Cartwright; and Prof. J.J. Prescott.

“When you look at how many cases courts process, you realize online interaction and resolution is the next frontier. Courts have so much potential to influence people’s lives for the better,” Prescott says. “The challenge is removing barriers to access while making the most of judicial and prosecutorial wisdom and experience. We wanted to make sure the software wouldn’t interfere with everything good that courts are already doing.”

Many people’s jobs don’t give them the flexibility to go to court during regular business hours, Prescott points out. And appearing in court for a minor infraction is time-consuming for judges, prosecutors, and the person charged with an infraction. “A typical scenario is that you wait four hours to see someone and you exchange five words,” he says.

While the online technology saves time for everyone involved, it conversely gives judges and prosecutors more time to learn about the person before making a ruling. Is the defendant, say, very likely or only somewhat likely to get another speeding ticket in the next year? “In the virtual environment, we can give prosecutors and judges more information than they would normally have within their reach about a person, and it can inform their decision making,” Gubernick says.

In-person interaction, of course, remains necessary for a lot of work courts do, Gubernick says. “This technology targets only those cases where online interaction can be faster, fairer, and less costly for everyone involved.

“Our goal is really to increase access to justice.”

“Proof that entrepreneurial ideas are flourishing at Michigan Law””

The project is part of the Global Challenges arm of U-M’s Third Century Initiative, a $50 million, five-year program that is leveraging the University’s interdisciplinary expertise to tackle some of society’s most pressing problems—while also creating learning opportunities for students.

ent_court_innovations_screengrab

The technology is being piloted at the 14A District Court in Michigan’s Washtenaw County and the 74th District Court in Bay County. Response from the technology’s users has been positive. “This system is working so well for our court that I would like to see it expanded to all the other courts,” says Thomas Truesdell, magistrate of 14A District Court and a board member of the Michigan Association of District Court Magistrates.

With funding through U-M’s Third Century Initiative in place for the next two years, Prescott’s team is preparing to scale the technology. However, the team is thinking far beyond the next few years. Prescott already has worked with U-M Technology Transfer to create Court Innovations Inc., a startup that will provide support and maintenance for the software during the project and grow the business opportunities generated going forward.

The developers and U-M believe the technology can go national. “Court Innovations was founded to ensure post-project sustainability,” says MJ Cartwright, the company’s CEO. “Our job over the next two years is to work with courts and state government groups to lay the foundation for the technology’s complete transition from U-M-based research and development into a commercial solution that can continue to scale and grow in Michigan and across the nation.”

Ken Nisbet, associate vice president for research at U-M Technology Transfer, says the company has leveraged Tech Transfer’s Venture Center, including the Venture Accelerator, to create a compelling value proposition to improve the court system. “This new venture is proof,” Nisbet says, “that entrepreneurial ideas are flourishing at Michigan Law.”

Prescott is pleased with the support from the Law School and the University as a whole. “At the Law School, we’re really expanding in the entrepreneurial arena,” Prescott says. “The great thing about being at a major research institution like U-M is that we are able to work closely with top people in all of the fields that matter to the success of the project—the statistics department, the Ross School of Business, the School of Information, the Ford School of Public Policy—about data modeling, increasing court efficiency, improving the user experience, and ensuring that litigants come away from the process understanding it and feeling that they’ve been fairly treated. It’s great to see the University not just supporting the hard sciences but also broadly interdisciplinary efforts like ours that emerge from the social sciences.”

Gubernick says the entrepreneurial aspects attracted him to the project. “I liked the idea of finding a solution to a problem in the real world,” he says. “And, really, that’s what entrepreneurship is all about—recognizing a problem, and finding a solution that no one has thought of.”

Here’s an article from Washetenaw County in Michigan, about one of the programs — an online dispute system for resolving traffic tickets.

By Jo Mathis, Legal News, October 2014

If you’ve ever spent an entire morning sitting in a packed courtroom to negotiate an outstanding parking or traffic ticket, you’ll appreciate a new system intended to nudge the courts closer to modern times.
The Online Court Project, funded by the University of Michigan and developed by Court Innovations, Inc., allows citizens who’ve received minor civil infractions or traffic tickets to seek reduced charges or other solutions to their problems online.
The program is currently being piloted in 14-A1 District Court, which covers Pittsfield Township. Eligible individuals simply go to the Court Innovations’ website at https://www.courtinnovations.com/14A1/traffic14A1/index, type in the information, and wait for the prosecutor and court decision-makers at the other end to examine their driving record and make a decision.
“The goal is to make the whole process easier for everybody on both sides, and at the same time, ensure that people are able to access the courts if they have concerns,” said Michigan Law Professor J.J. Prescott, who led the team that designed the new system. “That’s what courts are there for—to resolve disputes while at the same time making sure that people get a fair opportunity to have their concerns addressed.”
In-person meetings with a judge or magistrate are not only time-consuming, intimidating, and confusing—they’re often unnecessary, and requiring them can be counterproductive, if people decide not to use the courts as a result, Prescott said. And while litigants can already pay fines online, those with concerns about their case must go to court and face a tedious process that involves travel, parking, and taking time off work.
“We’re providing a platform that allows litigants and decision-makers to negotiate in a very efficient and effective way. For many minor court issues, a face-to-face meeting with a judge or prosecutor simply doesn’t improve the outcome for either side. Just as ATM machines allow you to skip seeing a bank teller during business hours, technology can help streamline and improve much of what courts do,” said Prescott.
At 14-A District Court, Magistrate A. Thomas Truesdell approves or denies the litigants’ requests after the Pittsfield Township police do the same. Truesdell, who says he typically follows the recommendation of police, is a big fan of the new Online Court Project, which has been in place for six months now.
The bottom-line goal, he said, is to reduce some of the tickets down to “impeding traffic,” which adds no points and therefore, does not cause an increase in car insurance.
“We were doing this by having an officer—an officer, not the one who wrote the ticket—come out to the court on several different tickets and see if they’d reduce it down to impeding traffic,” he said. “But of course, you’re still paying for one officer to come out, and you’re still paying for court time.”
He said the idea to allow an electronic pre-hearing conference makes sense.
“It’s a win-win for everybody because number one, with the way budgets are these days, the police do not have to show up, which means they can do it from their office if they have to do anything,” he said. “It eliminates the court time which means we don’t have to put that on our docket. And it also frees up time for the magistrate, of course. It also has a convenient factor for the defendant.”
The ease of paying the fee online is another advantage for both the defendant and court, he said.
Tickets for traffic crashes will not be reduced because they affect other parties.
The three charges that are eligible—and in the vast majority of cases are granted a reduction to “impeding traffic”—are speeding, disobeying a traffic control device, and failure to stop at a stop sign. The project is funded by the University of Michigan’s Third Century Initiative grant program. The grant is being used primarily to develop the software and implement pilots, with the hope of bringing the service to courts throughout Michigan and beyond. Over the two-year grant period, the use of the scalable software will transition away from a pilot implementation and be supported by courts and stakeholders.
“Courts affect many thousands of people every day,” said Prescott. “Most people have spent at least some time dealing with a traffic ticket through what seems to be an antiquated process. Often, people can’t figure out what they’re supposed to be doing and they are unable to hire a lawyer to help them.”
The software is specifically designed for each court so that the magistrates, clerks, and judges have at their disposal the information they need to grant or deny each request.
“In the case of traffic tickets, a lot of this has to do with your record,” said Prescott. “Not surprisingly, when the software reveals a poor driving history, judges are much less likely to offer a reduction.”
Prescott, who is also the co-director of the Empirical Legal Studies Center and the Law and Economics Program at Michigan Law, noted that while appearing before a judge with expertise and discretion is necessary in serious cases, most of what clogs the courts now are minor infractions that can be better handled online.
He recalls a time he waited in court four hours to have his ticket reduced from “evading a traffic device” to “impeding traffic” after a 30 second negotiation with the prosecutor. Many people can’t take that time off from work to wait in court, and sometimes decision-makers can be influenced by irrelevant considerations, like a person’s appearance. An on-line request levels the playing field, he said.
The program is expanding in Bay County this month to include the online mediation of outstanding warrants. Prescott believes the program has great potential to reduce the thousands of outstanding warrants for individuals who inadvertently missed a court date for a minor infraction or didn’t have the money to pay a fine. In many cases, these individuals simply don’t know how to resolve their warrant, but are too intimidated to walk into a court, even if they could take a day off work, for fear of being arrested.
Later this fall, the Online Court Project will expand into Ypsilanti, Northfield Township, and Saline.
Truesdell sees only positive results.
 “It’s worked wonderfully,” he said. “It’s a win-win.”
Categories
Background

Consumer Law product families

User Flow - Legal Navigator Flow Journey-01

I am working on a paper right now that stakes out a framework for those of us who are working on building access to justice innovations & accessible law tools.  After having led & participated in so many innovation sessions about what kind of tools would help lawyer-client relationships, self-help/DIY lay people trying to navigate the legal system, and the average middle class consumer trying to get legal help — I have processed my insights into some frameworks.  Here is one of them: a typology of consumer law product families.

I am building a user-centered design approach to Consumer Law.  It storyboards out the crucial moments (or touch points) of the user with the legal process. Then these moments become tasks around which to define products & services.

dd338b9e57a6f82d61995cd94d92fff8

I am considering law as a process — as a series of steps for a person to proceed through.  With this approach, law becomes less of an artform, or a black box.  We can map the actions, the flow & the touchpoints. Law becomes document-able.  And as we document the processes, we can use it create frameworks that guide how we speak about consumer law & how we develop new products & services for it.

Typology of consumer law products: families

Here is the first draft of my typology.  I’ve taken an average user flow (noted below) and then tried to group stages together into categories for products to serve the user of a legal system, trying to navigate a legal process.  There is another set of product families for the legal professionals serving the user, but that belongs in another framework.

  1. Engagement: inviting the user into the legal world and convincing her to come in
  2. Orientation: explaining the legal system to the user, along with its rules, and her rights
  3. Triage: finding the right path for the user’s particular situation
  4. Intake: establishing a relationship between the user & an advocate
  5. Process Guide: navigating a chosen path step-by-step
  6. Work Product Completion: taking care of specific actions along the path
  7. Strategy-making: helping the user weigh possible paths & decide which is best for her
  8. Coaching: supporting the person through the process with attention to their emotions & personal issues

Do you have any thoughts on this typology of product families? This is my first draft & I’m interested in feedback on it, as I work on more academic publications proposing a useful framework.

The Basic User Flow

I am basing this product family typology on a generalized user flow through a legal problem situation:

  • Activating the User onto the path, overcoming inertia
  • Informing the user about the pathway
  • User assess legal options available to them
  • User chooses a path to pursue
  • User pursues the path
  • User experiences a resolution (positive or negative) and disengages from the legal system

Access to Justice Design Process

I’ve fleshed these broad steps into a more concrete flow.

Steps the User takes to realize & address a legal problem in her life

  1. Become cognizant of a problem in their life
  2. Figure out that it has a legal dimension
  3. Find out what it is termed.
  4. Find out what possible outcomes are, what pathways there are from now
  5. Decide to get a legal service
  6. Choose the legal service
  7. Prepare for first encounter with the legal service
  8. Work with the legal service for the first time and exchange information
  9. Decide on a plan of action
  10. Begin to create or contribute to a work product
  11. Follow through on the work product
  12. Arrive at a final work product
  13. Ensure the work product leads to the deliverable expected
  14. Conclude engagement with the legal service

056669a9902e1271f0dfd47d6b30e8b4

Each moment is a family of products — to help the user accomplish this type of task.

Different types of processes — litigation in court, an administrative procedure, creation of a legal life plan, mediation between parties — will involve similar flows of steps.  Likely different variations of the products are needed for these varied processes.  For example, an Engagement product for Estate Planning process will not be the same as an Engagement Product for a Guardianship process.

Purpose & moving forward

The goal of my typology is not to be completely comprehensive about every single possible product we could build to serve consumer law. Rather, it is to have a framework & language that is consistent when we talk about this new generation of product and services, aimed at improving lay people’s access to the legal system.

A typology of product families gives a focus to where there are valuable functions to be performed — where we should be designing & developing.  After developing this initial typology, then we can build on top of it with examples, patterns, insights, etc.

Please let me know what you think in response — as I’m writing more on this track, I’m interested in hearing feedback.

Categories
Background

Is there a coherent Access to Justice Movement?

From November’s 5 Question Friday, I have compiled some of the responses and quotes I received in response to this question — Is There a Coherent A2J Movement?
Is there a coherent Access to Justice movement?
There is a trend to the lower points of the scale — and lots of insights into what could be improved,

Categories
Advocates Ideabook

Design Lessons from the 1980s Legal Clinics for the Access to Justice

Consumer Law Design Insights - by Margaret Hagan - from Legal Clinics - dark brown

As more talk grows about Internet & mobile-based technology opening up a new era of Consumer Law, it’s useful to look back a few decades when there was a similar tide of activity around expanding access to civil legal procedures to the middle classes of Americans.

After the Supreme Court ruling of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona opened up the possibility for lawyers to advertise on television, several upstart law firms tried to capture 70% of the population’s routine legal needs through scaled-up, commodity-based law firms located on America’s main streets.  These started off calling themselves Legal Clinics — most prominent among them were Hyatt Legal Services and Jacoby & Meyers.

These Legal Clinics don’t exist today in their original form.  Both firms morphed into other kinds of legal beasts, no longer the consumer-law centered main street law, now Hyatt is mainly in the business of group legal services plans and Jacoby & Meyers is more focused on personal injury litigation.

But thanks to a trove of articles from the 1980s that my colleague Neal Sangal found for his research on legal clinics, I’ve been looking into what the exact strategies and values these legal clinics had in their heyday.

Even if their business model & scaling strategy ultimately didn’t pay off in the 1980s legal environment, the Legal Clinics did enjoy many types of success before they morphed away from the clinic model.  They engaged middle class consumers to tackle their legal problems.  They build tech-based systems to handle routine problems. They radically lowered the prices that people would have to pay for legal solutions.  They built a distinct brand that people trusted, had name recognition, and could be a go-to for finding legal help.

That’s not to say that I would start my own consumer law business in their footsteps — more careful attention needs to be paid to why their expansion model ultimately didn’t pay off.

What I did want to take away especially are the core value propositions & changes that Hyatt Legal Services put forward back in the early 1980s.  This shortlist of 5 things that a law firm, court, or legal aid organization should be doing is crucial, and still relevant thirty years later.

Here are the points that Hyatt put forward in October 1984 of how it would do legal services differently — and that still are breath of fresh air:

Price: “Hyatt offers fees about 30% lower than the average. Fixed fees for standard services were found to be much more important to middle-class clients than low cost.”

Convenience: “Neighborhood centers, evening & Saturday hours, ground level signage, and retail characteristics all contribute to the firm’s accessibility and lower client anxiety about coming to the office.”

Quality: “Internal training programs, experienced lawyers, and expertise in focused areas are measures taken by Hyatt to deliver legal service quality. Checklists, flow charts, and forms help achieve quality control in all branches.”

Speed of Service: ”Document production is computerized to cut down on time spent by lawyers on paperwork.”

Respect: “Lack of respect by lawyers toward their clients is the No. 1 factor in resistance to seeing a lawyer. Hyatt is sensitive to this issue and takes steps to ensure attorney compliance.”

(quotes taken from the article “Hyatt targets legal market with five benefits: Advertising only part of formula,” from Marketing News, October 26 1984 — write me for a copy).

What I take away from these 5 points, that should be applicable in 2014’s tech-based consumer law movement are the following insights:

  1. Fixed fees will draw in users, because of greater transparency and assurance about costs.  Discounts may work, but they still leave a sense of the unknown that consumers will dread.  Give as much upfront reassurance about how much money a person will spend, and they will be more likely to engage in the transaction.
  2. A process-based guide to law, with maps and lists that guide a legal task, will train lawyers better and give consumers more confidence & co-piloting ability.
  3. A consumer law organization needs to build its brand, whether online or in person, so people know that it is available and trusted.  Its brand needs to convey that it’s convenient, transparent & accessible — even if this is not in an actual retail location.
  4. The service professionals need to show respect in their demeanor & their actions to the client.  This means giving more agency to the client with co-piloting tools, clear explainers that make the lawyer’s work more transparent, and other tools & resources that make them feel in control, in the loop, and getting it right.  We need more research into legal users’ experience to find out what these ‘respectful’ tools might be, that get the balance right in the lawyer-client relationship.
Categories
Background

What if we redesigned legal systems for the end user?

Legal Design - what would a child welfare system designed for the child look like
A quick talking head sketch of a ‘What-If’ for legal design. What if we started over with our legal systems? Instead of patching over the problems with better interfaces — we imagine what a user-centered legal system would look like from the ground up. This sketch came from a Children Right’s Summit held yesterday at Google’s headquarters, sponsored by the law firm Baker & MacKenzie, that brought together lots of legal & social service providers, together with counsel from a variety of tech companies.

The other insight in this sketch is that legal professionals need outsiders to come in & see where the opportunities lie for redesign. Because the systems are currently so professional-focused, doing more to serve the bureaucracy that currently exists or the status quo practices of the people working in the system — an outside perspective is needed to break open new spaces for innovation.

Categories
Ideabook Training and Info

Access to Justice & self-representation tools

As I’ve been writing up a paper on new legal tools & an agenda for access to justice innovation — I keep coming back to the same point.
Margaret Hagan - what we need for access to justice

To really address the access problem, we should be focusing on scalable, modular tools.  They could be in the form of software & other tech — or they could take other forms: new roles, new organizations, new workshops, new services, new designs of forms & pamphlets.

But the basic point is the same: we don’t just need more lawyers (though this is certainly needed too), we need to be investing on ways to help people get informed about legal processes & give them tools to navigate them.  Even if we (as lawyers) would prefer people to only use lawyers to address their legal problems, this is not what most people want and they will try the DIY route.  We should be building the tools that allow for more responsible & competent self-representation.