By Harrison Lebov
In an era where a car can drive itself and the colonization of Mars is a real possibility, it is staggering to think that courthouses and trial court systems are reluctant to utilize the internet. Legal technologists are not proposing a complete upheaval of court procedures, but merely technological supplements. With all of the “tech-tools” currently at the court systems’ disposal, it is a travesty that they have yet to be adopted, especially since the people who would likely benefit from them are the people who need them the most. Full integration of two simple tools, guided interviews and document automation, are precisely what the court system needs to see meaningful improvement in the effectiveness and efficiency of the administration of justice. The divide between people who need legal services and people who obtain them, or the “Justice Gap” as it has come to be known, is substantial; less than one out of five low-income people who need legal help actually get it. See Legal Services Corporation, Documenting the Justice Gap in America, Am. Bar Ass’n (Sept. 10, 2009). Guided interviews and documentation automation can help bridge this gap.
Guided interviews are essentially a series of questions with different “branches” of questioning depending on a user’s answers to the preceding questions. If a user answers a particular question in the affirmative or the negative, guided interviews have the ability to take that user down a different “branch” of the interview. Essentially, this eliminates any confusion about which questions need to be answered, as the interview asks only what is relevant to a user’s specific legal needs. This is most applicable to court forms, as any particular form can be reworked and molded into yes/no questions and short answer responses. Additionally, guided interviews have the potential to do something that court forms fail to; ask the questions in plain language. This emphasis on plain language is the vital underpinning of the guided interview; if people can’t understand the legal jargon smattered all over court forms, then how can they be expected to fill them out?
The second part of this operation is decidedly easier having already administered a guided interview. Document automation is the process by which the answers given by a user in a guided interview are extracted and placed within the proper confines of a corresponding court form. Regardless of economic stature, people rarely do not know the information required of them; they just do not know what the court form is asking for. Having used the guided interview to ask those questions effectively, and the document automation program to extract the answers to those questions and populate a court form, all that is left is a click of the “print” button to have a sufficiently executed court form without the assistance of counsel. Given that the majority of indigent litigants are represented pro se, the preceding is vital for an indigent litigant to navigate the courthouse; without it, we are left with a sad state of affairs that is the current legal justice system.
Student Bio: Harrison Lebov is a 3L at Suffolk University Law School, and a Lead Blog Editor on the Journal of High Technology Law. Harrison is also the President of the Suffolk Law Intramural Basketball Association, and the Vice President of the Law Innovation Technology Student Association. Currently, Harrison is interning with Harvard Law School’s Access to Justice Lab, and working closely with the Massachusetts Trial Court system implementing guided interview and document automation software.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
