1. Overview
Client: Massachusetts Trial Court
Duration: 4 months
(Sept. - Dec. 2022)
Role: UX Researcher
-
Team of 6 graduate student researchers conducted a research study for the Massachusetts Trial Court
-
Evaluated the Self-Represented Litigant* (SRL) experience when seeking legal aid to navigate the court
-
Main field methods included direct observations (5 visits to 3 district courts) and in-person & remote interviews (28 with litigants and 12 with legal staff)
-
Data was recorded in qualitative analysis software (Dovetail) and thematically coded
-
Team presented final findings and recommendations to the Executive Office of the MA Trial Court
*Self-represented litigant: An individual who chooses to represent themselves in a legal preceding (often due do financial reasons), rather than being represented by an attorney. Self-represented is often referred to as pro se or unrepresented. All three terms have the same meaning.
2. Problem Statement
How might we improve the experience of self-representing litigants seeking and accessing free legal aid?
3. Process
Initially our group aligned on the following three RESEARCH QUESTIONS to guide our project.
1.
What is the user experience like for low-income litigants obtaining free legal services?
2.
What kinds of legal aid offerings are available and how effective are they?
3.
How can we improve the process of litigants accessing free legal aid?
After identifying our trifecta of research questions, we began DATA COLLECTION.
1
2
Field Observations
5 visits to 3 District Courts
Remote Observations
6 calls to 4 District Courts Access Lines
Interviews
-
28 self-represented litigants
-
11 litigants were interviewed in-person over the course of 3 visits to 2 Justice Centers
-
17 litigants were interviewed virtually via Zoom over 4 occasions
-
-
12 staff members
-
6 from Court Service Center (CSC)
-
6 from Volunteer Lawyers Project (VLP)
-
Once we conducted 40 interviews, we began QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS.
We imported observation and interview data into Dovetail, a collaborative qualitative data analysis platform. Six researchers split into pairs and coded the data line by line, which precipitated 49 codes.
Video: Radar Plots of Codes
Next, we identified major themes in our data by affinity mapping our coded data highlights. We leveraged this analysis to see what the most salient areas of the self-represented litigant experience were, and used these categories to inform and prioritize our final recommendations.
Figure: Affinity Mapping
3. Outcome
Key Finding #1:
Self-represented litigants discover legal aid through multiple channels.
-
We found litigants discover legal aid through referrals from offices or employees within the Trial Court. They can also become aware of legal aid organizations through a court appointed special advocate.
-
In some cases, litigants may find referrals through non-legal channels consisting of word-of mouth recommendations, such as support groups and local community organizations.
-
Some litigants were enterprising and motivated enough to direct their own search. Most often, this search begins on the Mass.gov website or Google. However, not all litigants knew to look at Mass.gov, and were not even aware that it exists.
Key Finding #2:
The complexity of the legal system poses challenges for self-represented litigants.
“The court terminology is frustrating. Like, what is a ‘motion’?”
Litigant at Court Service Center
“Researching what I have to do, process-wise, takes up to 50-75% of the time I spend on my custody case.”
Litigant at Court Service Center
“They make forms so complicated, it’s like they are trying to get you to pay for a lawyer.”
Litigant at Court Service Center
-
Self represented litigants seek help for a variety of cases, including but not limited to:
-
custody (8)
-
divorce (6)
-
guardianship (1)
-
eviction (1)
-
name change (1)
-
-
While the U.S. legal system is intricate by design to address the diverse needs of complex cases, it is extremely difficulty to navigate it alone without legal expertise .
-
Self-represented litigants typically cannot afford to hire an attorney who has this domain knowledge, leaving the pro se litigant to struggle with understanding the rules of court, filing procedures, and evidentiary requirements.
Key Finding #3:
Some litigants felt they were getting sent from place-to-place within the court.
“It was kind of like a ping-pong effect. It’s just a lot of running around. Finally the third door you open at the Court Service Center there’s at least some information that points you in the right direction.”
- Litigant at Court Service Center
“People referring don’t actually know about the places they’re referring to.”
- Litigant at Court Service Center
4. Key Takeaways
We delivered our top RECOMMENDATIONS to the MA Trial Court in December 2022.
1.
To increase legal aid awareness and utilization: Add a background on Zoom for all court employees that says, “Ask me about access to free legal aid”.
2.
To reduce legal process complexity: Simplify court forms and instructions to make them clearer for self-representing litigants so they do not require external expertise to fill them out.
3.
To mitigate the ping pong referral frustration: Direct the litigant to the Court Service Center or to Masslrf.org (Massachusetts Legal Resource Finder) if court staff are unable to provide an effective referral.