i4J’s System Impact Area Initiatives

Why UX for court technologies matters

The System Impact Area was launched at a critical moment in history. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the civil legal system was primarily designed to facilitate in-person appearances, which limit access for those with inflexible work schedules, transportation limitations, medical issues, caregiving demands, or disabilities. As a result, many would-be users of the civil legal system simply did not—or could not—engage with it.

Technology offers a promising, albeit partial, solution to the justice gap by replacing in-person appearances with remote and online court processes. Successful use of technology has the potential to relieve barriers attributed to in-person appearances and deliver faster resolution, enhanced engagement with the legal process, fairer outcomes, improved court efficiency, and increased knowledge and exercise of legal rights. In a 2017 National Center for State Courts survey, more than 80% of respondents wanted more online access to local courts, including the ability to ask for guidance from court staff online rather than visit the courthouse.

Optimism that technology can reduce the justice gap, however, overlooks the reality that many people must overcome educational, language, technical, and access hurdles before using digital tools - this is known as the digital divide. The American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL) has recognized the justice system’s rush to a remote and online models has exacerbated challenges for underserved and underrepresented litigants who may be technologically challenged, lack access to technology or the internet, or may have other barriers that affect accessibility. There are substantial disparities in access to smartphones, home broadband internet, and home computers in America depending on income and race (Digital divide persists even as Americans with lower incomes make gains in tech adoption), and people who live in rural communities are less likely to own technology than their urban counterparts and less likely to have home broadband service than suburbanites. (Some digital divides between rural, urban, suburban America persist) Additionally, people with disabilities are much less likely than those without disabilities to have access to home internet service or own a computer, tablet, or smartphone, and may require special technology in order to fully engage online. (Americans with disabilities less likely than those without to own some digital devices.)

The Self-Represented Litigation Network warns that technology issues may delay and disrupt proceedings, negatively impact perceptions of the process, raise legal and constitutional issues, and negatively impact outcomes. A Brennan Center for Justice research report said, “use of remote technology—and its possible expansion—also raises critical questions about how litigants’ rights and their access to justice may be impacted, either positively or negatively, and what courts and other stakeholders can do to mitigate any harms.” The report went on to highlight the “need for additional research and evaluation as courts experiment with remote systems, as well as the need for courts to consult with a wide array of stakeholders when developing policies for video proceedings.”

The only way to design and build technologies that serve all of these individuals’ needs is to work with them in the creation of the technologies. The NCSC’s Joint Technology Committee has recommended that “to glean the greatest benefit, ODR should be co-designed and rigorously user-tested by the public it seeks to serve. Courts must involve the public as key stakeholder participants. In a social media-driven economy, well-designed, user-friendly websites and apps are their own best advertisement.”

UX is about mitigating risk

When it comes to the development of emerging technologies or the redesign of court websites, designing something that works for all users from the get-go is much faster and less expensive than launching an untested tool and having to retroactively redesign the technology when it doesn’t work as intended for its users. In order for courts and legal professionals to be as successful as possible in their digital transformations, they should invest in UX throughout the design and development process.

This is a critical moment for justice-sector technologies. The majority of courts have seen the benefit of technology and are not interested in returning to pre-pandemic processes. The opportunity we face now is to integrate human-centered design into the expansion of remote and online courts so the technologies employed are efficient and effective for all court users.

UX4Justice brings a diverse set of stakeholders to the table to work together to create technologies that are more equitable because they are informed by multiple perspectives, including community members historically excluded from access to justice and community-based organizations. By engaging would-be court users in the design of court technologies and processes, i4J’s System Impact Area is leading the way in helping courts create technologies that better meet the needs of the people they serve.

In the News