Self-represented litigants primarily measure procedural justice by whether they had a voice, were listened to, and were treated fairly in court. Do these basic marks of overall satisfaction differ between the mode in which the hearing took place though? This week’s Proof Over Precedent episode features an interview with justice reform consultant Emily LaGratta and Nathanael Player, former director of the Utah State Court Self-Help Center, about a study looking at litigants’ perception of fairness in their respective experiences with either remote or in-person court.
Read the corresponding blog post.
Speakers:
- Renee Danser, Associate Director of Research and Strategic Partnerships, Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School
- Emily LaGratta, justice reform consultant and founder, LaGratta Consulting
- Nathanael Player, former director, Utah State Court Self-Help Center
Resources mentioned:
- Evaluating the Impact of Virtual Proceedings in Family Law Matters for Self-Represented Litigants: A Randomized Control Trial, Access to Justice Lab, Harvard Law School (2026)
- Litigant empowerment through choice? Insights from an Ongoing Study of Remote versus In-Person Family Court Hearings, Trends in State Courts 2024
- Accessing Justice with Zoom: Experiences and Outcomes in Online Civil Courts. Maurer School of Law at Indiana University (2023)
- LaGratta Consulting
- State Justice Institute
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