We like to use Proof Over Precedent as a platform to highlight our evidence-based findings, as well as others’ studies, from randomized control trials in the field of law. This is not one of those times. In this week’s episode, Professor Jim Greiner talks with the A2J Lab researcher and data analyst who spent years working on our Online Courts study about the disappointment, frustration, and lessons learned from a flawed RCT. They still managed to glean a takeaway from comparing remote and in-person hearings for self-represented litigants in family court.
Read the corresponding blog post.
Speakers:
- Renee Danser, Associate Director of Research and Strategic Partnerships, Access to Justice Lab, Harvard Law School
- Patricia Gansert, Assistant Data Analyst, Access to Justice Lab, Harvard Law School
- D. James Greiner, Honorable S. William Green Professor of Public Law; Faculty Director, Access to Justice Lab, Harvard Law School
Resources mentioned:
- “Evaluating the Impact of Virtual Proceedings in Family Law Matters,” Final Report
- Episode 68: Evaluating Procedural Fairness in Court and on Zoom (Proof Over Precedent episode on related qualitative research)
- Pro Se Perceptions of Fairness in Remote and In-Person Court (Proof Over Precedent blog on related qualitative research)
Share feedback and relevant topics you would like the A2J Lab to discuss: [email protected]
Stay connected with the Access to Justice Lab:
Proof Over Precedent cover art by Courtney Chrystal