Technology Helps To Bridge the Access to Justice Gap for Low-Income Litigants

With a nationwide shortage of legal aid organizations and lawyers willing to work for free, many Americans are left to defend themselves in civil court—often at a cost to their way of life, legal experts say. Yet modern technology may well be the bridge for self-represented litigants seeking access to America’s justice system.

An estimated three out of five litigants in civil cases go to court without a lawyer, according to the Self-Represented Litigation Network (SRLN), a network of legal professionals and allies committed to promoting access to justice.

The problem is particularly acute among low-income Americans, according to a survey conducted by the Legal Services Corp. (LSC), a private organization dedicated to funding legal aid organizations that help those who cannot afford a lawyer. 

---

As a nonprofit journalism organization, we depend on your support to fund more than 170 reporting projects every year on critical global and local issues. Donate any amount today to become a Pulitzer Center Champion and receive exclusive benefits!

---

The group’s 2022 Justice Gap survey shows that “low-income Americans did not receive any or enough legal help for 92% of their civil legal problems.”

“Due to a lack of legal aid funding, the vast majority of low-income people must go it alone without adequate legal help,” LSC President Ronald S. Flagg told Bloomberg Law in 2022, calling this shortfall “the justice gap.”

“They are forced to ‘go it alone’ without legal representation in disputes where they risk losing their job, their livelihood, their home or their children,” the LSC Justice Gap survey reveals. “Additionally, more than one-half (53%) of low-income Americans doubt their ability to find a lawyer they could afford if they needed one.”

Amid inadequate legal aid funding that forces people to self-represent in many of their civil cases, modern technology may well be the answer to help close the gap that exists for self-represented litigants.

“Because there often aren’t enough lawyers to help, technology must be part of the solution to help litigants better advocate for themselves,” says Kristen Sonday, co-founder and CEO of Paladin, a company that helps increase access to justice for ordinary Americans.

“Technology is essential for helping self-represented litigants understand the technicalities of court processes, navigate the actual experience, and prepare essential documents,” Sonday wrote in an article for Thomson Reuters online. 

With lessons learned, largely from the COVID-19 pandemic, the integration of technology into the nation’s justice system is helping to expand access to justice.

Courts are now using remote and hybrid hearings in all 50 states for both civil and criminal case types, according to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), a group committed to driving innovation and progress in the courts and justice system.

In a hybrid court hearing, for example, two or more participants attend court from at least two different locations. The judge and court officials are typically in the courtroom, while the litigant or litigants involved in the dispute join the proceeding from outside the courtroom using video conferencing technology, says the NCSC. The ability of self-represented litigants to access a courtroom remotely, without having to travel, is helping low-income people cut down on costs involved in accessing the justice system.

With the help of NCSC's Hybrid Hearing Improvement Initiative, technology companies have equipped courts in 28 states and two territories with the technology to help increase access to justice for low-income people going through the court system, says Lindsay Hafford, NCSC’s project director.

Judge Roy Ferguson, of the 394th District Court in Brewster County, Texas, attests to the benefit of the Hybrid Hearing Improvement Initiative.

“By making hybrid hearings a reality for our courts, this NCSC project enables us to provide higher quality justice for community members who were historically excluded by distance, work, family obligations or low financial means,” Ferguson said in an article for NCSC.org. 

Other nonprofit organizations have taken the initiative to develop free online tools to help increase access to justice for low-income litigants. One such organization is Upsolve.

Upsolve is a “terrific tool,” said Harvard Law School Professor James Greiner, who also heads the school’s Access to Justice lab program. 

For example, here's how the tool work to help those faced with the prospect of filing for bankruptcy:  

Upsolve allows users to create an online account where they complete a questionnaire asking them about their financial situation. After completing the questionnaire, users then take an hourlong, for-credit online course. The computer software then generates the proper form for users to file in bankruptcy court. Lastly, users will have a meeting with a bankruptcy trustee who will ask questions about the forms. If all goes well, in a few months, users will be informed that their debt has been canceled. 

The Massachusetts Defense For Eviction (MADE) is another tool helping those access the justice system without a lawyer. Built by Cornell University Law School graduate Quinten Steenhius, this free online technology helps tenants in Massachusetts who are self-represented in eviction cases. 

Since its founding in 2018, MADE “has assisted tenants across Massachusetts in preparing the seven forms they need for hearing,” Amanda Roberts writes in an article for the American Bar Association Journal.

MADE works like an online interview. It asks for a person's information, his or her landlord, and the nature of the eviction case. The answers to the questions will generate a legal document; then the person will sign the document and file with the court, according to the Massachusetts Defense For Eviction website.

Greiner suggests an additional technological tool that he believes courts could adopt.

The court system could begin to adopt practices of some insurance firms when resolving cases, Greiner said. When two insurance companies are trying to figure out which one of them will have to pay, they can get people to record their version of what happened on cell phone records. Then, an arbitrator listens to those two versions and makes a decision, said Greiner. 

For example, the insurance companies could say to customers, “Dial into this number and turn on your camera on your cell phone. The computer is going to ask you a set of questions, and you just answer them, and then if there are more questions, ... we may call you back,” Greiner said. From here, “whether my insured caused the accident or whether your insured caused the accident, we'll leave that up to the arbitrator.”

The adoption of such a tool would help save costs for self-represented litigants in civil cases, says Greiner.

Technology may not be the silver bullet that solves all the ills and challenges that plague those who choose to self-represent, but it can be an important tool that contributes to helping to close the gap that exists for low-income people and those who, out of frustration over challenges in the justice system, have chosen to go it alone. 

From videoconferencing to free online tools that create user-friendly processes that guide self-represented litigants, technology can be a resource in helping to expand access to justice, given the limitations that exist in the nation’s justice system to provide adequate help for self-represented litigants.