Guardianship Service of Process

The Problem

Service of process can be a very complicated step in obtaining legal guardianship. The phrase “service of process” alone is a confusing one.

Petitioners, most of whom are not lawyers, have to: (1) identify “interested parties,” many of whom are not obvious candidates; (2) determine the proper method of service; (3) effectuate service; and (4) return proof of service to the Probate and Family Court. Completing the process exactly as described is equally important. Service isn’t just a legal formality; it’s a crucial part of the petition. If interested parties, i.e., those who might want to contest the petition aren’t notified, due process concerns would arise. Failing to serve within the prescribed timeline will stall the petition.

People who have gone through the process have described the paperwork as overly complicated, repetitive, and time-consuming. Worse, a significant number of petitioners fail to reach a judge at all—not because of the substance or validity of their case, but because they have failed to overcome the procedural hurdles standing in the way of having a case heard on the merits.

Current Solutions

Courts and legal aid organizations provide individual assistance explaining court procedures. Courts have, for example, made attempts at drafting checklists or other instructions about the process. Many legal service providers develop their own self-help materials or employ different techniques to get litigants to remember at least some of these very complicated steps. Some tell litigants to come back once they receive a new piece of mail from the court, so that the next step can be explained to them in a way that is more concrete and obvious. Repeat visits, in-person explanations, and drafting instructions all take significant time and energy that attorneys could otherwise spend assisting more court users. Are these solutions having any effect on litigants’ ability to navigate the court procedure and get their first hearing in front of a judge?

The Study

In partnership with the Boston Court Service Center and the Volunteer Lawyers Project of the Boston Bar Association, the Lab’s Guardianship Service of Process study evaluates whether self-help materials can make a difference for court users navigating the complex web of court procedures to initiate a guardianship case.

The Guardianship Service of Process Study, which launched in early September 2017, tests Lab-designed self-help materials. Participants receive printed materials (developed in large part at our first hackathon) on a randomized basis for both adult or minor guardianship cases and in English or Spanish. In addition, minor guardianship petitioners randomized to receive the hard copy booklets will also gain access to an online tool developed by Bill Palin, the Access to Justice/Technology Fellow with Harvard Law School’s clinical programs. That site walks users through their case to provide personalized instructions, using new guided interview software similar to TurboTax. The RCT will compare rates of successful service, among other outcomes, between the treatment and control groups.

If self-help packets or a new tech tool can help people file for guardianship and then correctly complete service of process, then legal services providers know what types of resources to invest in and how best to allocate their limited resources. And if the self-help materials aren’t at all effective, perhaps we can learn something about the procedural hurdles and have a better understanding of how these hurdles themselves may need to change.

 

The Research Team

Jim Greiner, Faculty Director, The Access to Justice Lab; Professor of Law at Harvard Law School

Chris Griffin, Research Director, The Access to Justice Lab

Erika Rickard, Associate Director of Field Research, The Access to Justice Lab

With intervention design thanks to our affiliates,

Bill Palin, Developing Justice, Harvard Law School

Hallie Jay Pope, Graphic Advocacy Project

Grading School Voucher Programs

Why RCTs?: School Choice

Everyone seems to have an opinion on school choice. Those favoring or trying to forestall the dismantling of residential barriers have fought loud, hard battles in the states. Interestingly, these battles haven’t necessarily pitted political partisans against each other. The “choice” bloc recently witnessed a vocal spokesperson, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, rise to prominence. She has advocated passionately for implementing more voucher systems and giving parents and students more perceived opportunity to succeed where the current public school system, some claim, clearly cannot.

A2J Lab “Behind the Experiment”: Dane County Part III

Today we present a final look at key field partners who have helped make the Dane County PSA RCT one of the A2J Lab’s signature series. Check out Part I and Part II as well!

In this installment, we are fortunate to share reflections from three officers of the court: Judge Juan Colás, Commissioner Jason Hanson, and Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne.

A2J Lab “Behind the Experiment”: Dane County Part I

Last week, we marked the launch of our PSA RCT in Dane County, Wisconsin. Starting today, I will be pulling back the field experiment curtain, as it were, and introducing some of the A2J Lab’s field partners. These Dane County employees have worked tirelessly for almost two years to make the PSA’s implementation and our concurrent evaluation possible.

Ready, Set, Launch

Research Director Chris Griffin blogs from Wisconsin:

The day has finally arrived!

At this afternoon’s initial appearance court in Dane County, WI, the A2J Lab begins its evaluation of the Public Safety Assessment (“PSA”). Criminal process in this jurisdiction now includes additional, scientifically based information in a randomly selected subset of cases to inform pre-disposition release decisions. The judicial official–known here as a Commissioner–receives risk scores and a recommendation for release through the PSA and its static criminal history inputs to consider in reaching those decisions. Check out this video starring Lab affiliate Heidi Liu and yours truly to learn more about the science behind this RCT:

On Your Mark, Get Set, Triage

Part 2 of “To Triage of Not to Triage? That is NOT the Question.”

Last week I took another dive into the world of triage- specifically focusing on some common questions and sticking points that were raised in RadioLab podcast entitled “Playing God.” As was mentioned in the previous blog post, we don’t think triage is really about playing god, rather about facing limited resources and making decisions. Last week we talked mostly about the value implications of such discussions of who lives and who dies. This week we’ll touch upon two other points. First, the reaction to not want to make triage decisions, and the second is the multitude of ways to triage and therefore the importance of RCTs in knowing which way is best in a given situation.

“To Triage or Not to Triage?” That is NOT the Question

Part 1

The Radiolab podcast from WNYC Studios is as close to appointment listening as we have in 2016. One of the show’s recent episodes, entitled “Playing God,” takes up a topic directly in the A2J Lab’s wheelhouse: triage. In a stark bit of commentary, the host characterizes the practice not as deciding how to allocate scarce resources; rather he described it as an “inhuman act which humans are trying to do.”

Fear and Loathing over Risk Assessments Part 2

How Should We Think about Racial Disparities?

In a previous post, I considered some of the less convincing critiques of pretrial and sentencing risk assessments that sound in the ecological fallacy. The fallacy argument mistakenly targets risk scores as applying only group inferences to individual case decision-making. The takeaway was straightforward. A comprehensive understanding of actuarial tools must include rigorous counterfactual thinking about a state of the world in which they aren’t available. In this follow-up, I discuss an even more serious claim: that actuarial tools might lead to unjustifiable racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes.

Divorce

The Problem

For the past 30 years, an increasing number of people come to court without a lawyer. As more people come to courts to access their legal rights, they are met with fewer free or low-cost legal services to help. Across the country, legal practitioners, scholars, and appellate courts have begun to question whether court procedure is effectively preventing access to justice.

Current Solutions

Courts, legal services providers, and state and local Bars have responded to the flood of people without lawyers in numerous ways, including:

  • amending ethical rules to legitimate already-existing forms of lawyer representation
  • self-help centers
  • uniform court forms
  • self-help materials
  • technology
  • and non-lawyer representation.

In 2015, the Conferences of Chief Judges and State Court Administrators passed a joint resolution adopting “the aspirational goal of 100 percent access to effective assistance for essential civil legal needs.”

Some of the efforts to stem the tide of pro se, self-represented, or unrepresented litigants have focused on connecting people with lawyers: by increasing pro bono efforts and leveraging different technologies to connect people with free legal aid or low-cost representation. Recent efforts, however, primarily focus on alternatives to representation, and very few efforts address changes to court processes themselves.

The Study

Field operation

During the study, potential clients seeking a divorce underwent a 45-60-minute interview to determine eligibility and learn more about the details of their case.

After the interview, consenting study-eligible individuals were randomized to one of two groups:

  • Treated group: an effort by the service provider to find a pro bono attorney to represent her;
  • Control group: a referral to existing self-help resources and an offer to answer questions by telephone.

Results

We reviewed the court case files for all study participants, to review which cases successfully (a) filed for divorce in court, and (b) got divorced.

divorceinfographic

The Research Team

Jim Greiner, Faculty Director, The Access to Justice Lab; Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Ellen Degnan, Law Student, University of Miami School of Law

Tom Ferriss, Quantitative Analyst, Google

Roseanna Sommers, JD/PhD candidate, Yale Law School and Yale University

 

More Information

About divorce proceedings and legal rights