Closing the Justice Gap: How can we use legal tech to expand access to justice?

The promise of our legal system is clearly written above our Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Under the Law." It is no secret that this has not always been fulfilled. One way we fall short is through what legal experts call "the justice gap," which refers to the gap between the need for legal services and the services that are available.

This gap is mainly an issue for low-income Americans, as they are both more likely to experience civil legal issues and less likely to use the legal system to address those issues.

Some experts are looking to find modern solutions to this age-old problem: the development of new legal tech.

These experts, affectionately called "techno-optimists," want to create self-help tools that will put the legal system at the fingertips of low-income Americans. In theory, these tools would allow people to address their legal issues on their own or at least allow people to educate themselves on the legal aspects of their problems.

That's perfect, right? Well, not quite.

One of the main barriers to utilizing the legal system is that low-income Americans don't even realize there could be a legal aspect to their problems. For example, the number one reason (31% of all cases) that persons experiencing domestic violence don't seek legal help is that they didn't know the abuse was illegal. So, it is unrealistic to think that this process can be 100% self-help.

A better approach would be to place the new tech in the hands of trusted "intermediaries," such as social workers or community leaders. This way, the responsibility for recognizing legal aspects to a problem is in the hands of the intermediary, who--with some training--would be in a better position to recognize such an issue.

Of course, there is a risk here. Intermediaries will be at risk of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, which is illegal in every state. The "practice of law" is defined broadly in every state, covering activities ranging from filing court documents to giving legal advice. So, the intermediaries will have to be careful to not cross this line.

In practice, it will probably be the difference between saying, "They are violating the law and you should sue them;" and saying, "Based on what the app is telling me, there might be a legal aspect to your problems."

As discussed in my previous blogs, the legal world and legal tech is continuing to adapt. As it does so, we should stop and consider if there are any ways we can use these innovations to serve historically oppressed communities and finally live up to the promise of "Equal Justice Under the Law."

But don't just take my word for it! Check out my references below:

• https://www.amacad.org/publication/techno-optimism-access-legal-system

• https://www.lsc.gov/sites/default/files/images/TheJusticeGap-FullReport.pdf

• https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/criminal-justice/reports/2016/12/08/294479/making-justice-equal/

• https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/unequal_justice_u.s._trails_high-income_nations_in_serving_civil_legal_need

Disclaimer:

The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from The Legal Worker or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s jurisdiction.