Expert Opinions

To address the challenges posed by the rising number of debt collection cases in our state courts—including high rates of self-represented litigants and default judgments—IAALS and the National Center for State Courts have released a new white paper that presents a model approach to reform in these cases.

As a member of the California State Bar Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services, I’m often asked how things are going with ATILS and what is coming next. Considering the recent increase in news coverage of our efforts, the critical feedback received to date, and with the Task Force recently being named to the 2020 American Bar Association’s list of Legal Rebels, I thought it was the right time to put together this quick blog post to provide everyone with an update from the Golden State.

In Ohio, state judges are currently chosen in nonpartisan general elections (although they do compete in partisan primaries). But House Bill 460 would allow judicial candidates to place their party affiliations directly on the general election ballot. If the measure becomes law, Ohio would be the second state in recent years to move from nonpartisan to openly partisan elections. 

IAALS’ Court Compass project is all about incorporating user-centric design into courts’ reform process to engage and empower litigants in creating solutions and to help improve their trust and confidence in the legal system. The results of IAALS’ model workshops were just released in a new report, titled Redesigning Divorce: User-Driven Design for a Better Process.

Some lawyers have expressed concern that changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct will allow new players into the field, potentially reducing their income and/or taking their jobs. On the contrary, however, allowing new players in the business of legal services may make it possible for lawyers to scale their practices and enlarge the legal services pie for all.

The legal system has been regulated so tightly that it has led to a world where only a fraction of the citizens who require legal services can access them, and we cannot afford to fail those who cannot afford legal representation. Unlocking legal regulation is the answer and stands at the heart of the worthy efforts underway in states across the country.

In partnership with national experts, IAALS has developed three new guides to support real change in state courts. Stemming from our work on the Civil Justice Initiative and Family Justice Initiative, the guides are designed to assist in creating effective self-help information for those who need it, developing problem-solving approaches for families in court, and providing insight for judges who interface with self-represented litigants.

Limited legal license programs, such as the one in Washington state that NCSC is beginning to evaluate this month, can effectively contribute to the expansion of the way legal services are delivered. However, their success may be hampered if they are weighed down by excessive limitations and restrictions.

Pro bono work, while worthwhile and commendable, cannot supplant for the need for a significant change in the way our legal system is regulated. 

IAALS submitted this comment to the California State Bar Task Force on Access Through Innovation for Legal Services (ATILS) as part of its request for public comment on its tentative regulatory recommendations for enhancing the delivery of, and access to, legal services. Through our Unlocking Legal Regulation project, which is launching soon, we are partnering with Utah to bring bold innovation to the realm of legal regulation and the provision of legal services.

In her final post as Executive Director, Rebecca Love Kourlis discusses the public’s low trust and confidence in the American legal system. IAALS will be rolling out the results of its research in the area over the next few months, and begins with three papers, which together kick off a part of the conversation IAALS calls “Are We at a Boiling Point?”

Based on IAALS' model for out-of-court divorce, the Family Resolutions Specialty Court in Massachusetts helps parents of minor children work through issues related to divorce, separation, paternity, and more—and keeps the focus on the best interests of the child.

Innovations in the delivery of legal services can also be laboratories for testing innovations in legal education. Many innovations in education spring from the IAALS out-of-court divorce model and had an effect on the law students who participated in the on-campus center that provided the services.

Nevada, which directly elects nearly all of its state judges, has never implemented an official judicial performance evaluation program. Instead, between 1992 and 2013, the state’s largest newspaper conducted its own surveys of attorneys in Clark County regarding judges seeking reelection until their survey methodology came under sharp criticism. Now the surveys are set to return, with some significant retooling.

In April 2019, the California State Auditor filed her report on an investigation into the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state's judicial conduct body. There is growing interest nationally in judicial misconduct and the entities in each state (and federally) that investigate complaints, and in 2018, IAALS prepared its own Recommendations for Judicial Discipline Systems.

It is no secret that divorce poses significant problems for those who go through the legal process. The adversarial nature of the legal process can put people at odds with one another and the courts are not well-positioned to provide emotional and future-planning support. IAALS has released a new report detailing the evaluation of our out-of-court model aimed at addressing these challenges for families with children.

As state courts around the country have been responding to the Conference of Chief Justices' 2016 Call to Action for civil justice reform, IAALS, NCSC, and NCJFCJ also have been focused on developing companion recommendations for evaluating and improving the way courts handle domestic relations cases, which have just been released.

Done right, summary judgment expedites the just resolution of a case—that’s the whole reason we have Rule 56. Our challenge as judges and lawyers is to make dispositive motion practice advance that purpose. While lawyers have traditionally filed such motions if, when, and as often as they pleased, this is a recipe for excess or—worse—abuse. Dispositive motions work best when they are part of a plan for moving the case toward resolution.

Today, IAALS announces the release of a new resource, Listen > Learn > Lead: A Guide to Improving Court Services through User-Centered Design, on how best to solicit feedback from self-represented litigants and other court stakeholders. The tools provided in this guide come from the knowledge IAALS gained through the Court Compass Project design sprint workshops.

In the past several years, design thinking has gained traction in the legal field as a method for involving litigants and other stakeholders in developing improvements to the legal system. IAALS has taken design thinking one step further in applying a structured qualitative research approach to the process.