Expert Opinions

Throughout the past ten months, our justice system has made giant strides in its use of technology, including video- and tele-conferencing, e-filing, remote jury trials, and online dispute resolution. The question now faced by many courts is: are these digital processes working like they’re supposed to?

The pandemic has affected our civil justice system in many ways, yet perhaps the most important role access to justice entities can play in the near future is to advocate for the retention of remote access systems for court appearances as well as for the delivery of legal and self-help services.

2020 revealed that most of us are swimming naked when it comes to our ability to meaningfully access our justice system. 2020 certainly exacerbated issues, but its true effect and power was revealing our society’s not-so-secret dirty secrets: systemic racism, growing income inequality, the failing U.S. healthcare system, and a justice system that only serves a small minority of Americans.

In the past few months, there have been encouraging updates in several states aimed at more effectively addressing the legal needs of disaster survivors. Two states—Louisiana and Texas—implemented various tools to help streamline litigation arising from these disasters.

On the whole, 2020 was a quiet time for state judicial elections, at least in comparison to recent years. Fewer sitting judges were directly targeted for removal, and most of the efforts to oust judges failed at the ballot box. But even quiet years have standout moments, and the recent election cycle brought several noteworthy developments.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we have learned to operate almost wholly online—something that many thought was impossible. However, while this move has brought with it a number of positive effects, it has also exposed a digital divide that must be addressed in order for there to be equity in our justice system.

It’s time that the delivery of legal services reflected the reality of innovation and progress we see in every other field—medical, financial, engineering, and everything in between—giving everyone greater access to legal services.

In a groundbreaking report, IAALS, in partnership with Professor Deborah Merritt at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, has defined the minimum competence that new lawyers need to be qualified to practice law—and provides recommendations for how legal licensing processes like the bar exam must change to be more fair to bar applicants and to better protect the public.

Courts currently face a backlog of civil cases that have been placed on hold since mid-March, as well as a predicted wave of case filings stemming from the pandemic. Courts need a framework to adapt to their new reality—and they already have that framework and tools to make meaningful and mandatory changes.

Courts around the country are focused on staying open to ensure access to justice is available; however, with so many doing so much, we need to ensure cross-pollination of these varied ideas by sharing knowledge and combining our collective intellectual capacity across the various silos within our system.

Many states, including California, are exploring regulatory reform as a means through which to drive innovation in the legal services sector and increase access to justice. The public is rarely involved in these discussions, however, and the critical consumer perspective is missing.

The legal profession is fraught with systemic barriers to entry that form ripple effects on the road to becoming a lawyer. The pathway is much like narrow pipeline—entry is limited and every segment is springing leaks, disproportionately affecting people of color along the way—creating a profession that is among the least diverse in the country.