Traditional Attorney-Client

The Setting: Most existing studies use survey-based approaches that measure client satisfaction.^[1] We found no research measuring the legal outcomes of brief advice services. No evidence from credible studies links the advice provided to measurable effects on case results, let alone on socioeconomic outcomes of individuals and communities. There is, in short, no causal evidence showing that advice changes the court rulings that can damage client socioeconomic outcomes on any dimension.^[2]   

Moving from whether brief advice is useful to whether it is used, again, we cannot say.  As with the research we just discussed, any research conducted in this area relied exclusively on single point in time surveys of clients.^[3]  Without a comparison group, no one knows whether the actions clients took after receiving brief advice are the same as those they would have taken in the absence of brief advice.  There is no research using a credible design to test this hypothesis. 

The challenges described above transcend case type. Need exceeds capacity, necessitating creative service solutions such as “brief advice,” in every case type LSPs encounter.  Lack of research to understand even the most basic definition of “does it work” – court outcomes – is ubiquitous within civil legal aid.  Considering whether individuals or communities experience impacts beyond the courthouse steps is completely absent from the discussion in all case types. And an inability to know whether individuals even use the advice permeates attempts at evaluating service delivery.  These challenges exist in all civil case types serving pro se litigants.  This project will begin the process of creating a credible research base on these issues across differing case types, contributing new knowledge to the field.  It is urgent. 

^[1] JOHN M. GREACEN, SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS AND COURT AND LEGAL SERVICES RESPONSES TO THEIR NEEDS 4–8 (2002), available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/ partners/documents/SRLwhatweknow.pdf. 

^[2] Linda F. Smith & Barry Stratford, DIY in Family Law: A Case Study of a Brief Advice Clinic for Pro Se Litigants, 14 J.L. & FAM. STUD. 167, 180 (2012). 

^[3] See, American Association of Retired Persons Foundation.  Legal Hotlines: Outcomes and Follow-up:  A Survey of Clients at Senior Legal Hotlines in Florida, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Washington, 2000 (available in hard copy from the National Center on Poverty Law, http://www.povertylaw.org/hotline/hotline2A.htm) (80% of respondents receiving advice report following it); IOLTA Information Services and Sonoma County Legal Aid.  The Self-Help Access Center (SHAC) is Filling a Critical Niche in the Sonoma County Justice System:  SHAC:  The First Six Months.  Sonoma County, CA 2001 (80% of respondents receiving a referral or suggestion for non-legal help report acting on that advice); Garrett, Tom.  Survey of Former Clients of Legal Services Law Line of Vermont, Inc.  Burlington, VT, 2000 (61% of respondents report acting based on the advice they received). 

The Problem: Ordinarily, only the neediest qualify for free civil legal aid. But the number of “the neediest” is large enough to exceed the capacity of LSPs to provide a traditional attorney-client relationship for each legal matter implicating basic human needs. To increase the number of people served, LSPs provide services short of a traditional attorney-client relationship. One such service form is called “brief advice.” For many LSPs, brief advice is the most common form of service offered to low-income clients, even with respect to matters that LSPs traditionally prioritize.

LSPs running extensive brief advice programs assume without any evidence (much less credible evidence) that a little bit of lawyer (or paralegal) is better than no lawyer, that some lawyer is better than a little bit of lawyer, and that a traditional lawyer-client relationship is best of all. Moreover, they define “better” or “best of all” solely in terms of court rulings, without considering socioeconomic wellbeing. Thus, LSPs do not know whether brief advice improves socioeconomic wellbeing. Worse still, they do not know whether brief advice improves court rulings. Worst of all, LSPs do not even know whether their clients even follow the brief advice they receive.

The Questions: This randomized control trial (RCT) will investigate whether brief advice is a useful substitute for full-scope legal representation for low-income individuals in high volume civil dockets on three dimensions: (1) whether individuals receiving the brief advice follow it; (2) the impact on court outcomes, (3) the impact on socioeconomic outcomes including family stability, housing security, and general well-being or life satisfaction.

The Study: This project will focus on PLA’s child custody practice and DCLA’s assistance with respect to non-payment of rent for non-subsidized housing units in summary eviction litigation.  We purposefully chose differing case types.  We hypothesize results will generalize across case types, making them even more useful for policymakers interested in understanding long-term impacts of pro se litigant service models and acting using a credible research base.   

To assess the research questions discussed above, the A2J Lab will conduct an RCT, as follows: PLA will invite pro se individuals accessing the Family Court Help Center (FCHC) with a study-eligible child custody matter to participate in the study.  Similarly, DCLA will invite pro se individuals accessing their intake system (which includes online, telephone, and in-person modalities) with a non-payment of rent matter.  In Philadelphia, the A2J Lab will randomly assign those providing informed consent to either full-scope legal representation from an LSP (Full-Scope Group) or brief advice from either a paralegal or attorney with the LSP (Brief Advice Group).  The Brief Advice Group may include a second random assignment to limited-scope assistance provided by a PLA paralegal (Paralegal Sub-Group), or brief advice provided by the FCHC (FCHC Sub-Group). In D.C., the randomization will be to either the Brief Advice Group or the Self-Help Materials Group. Again, the variation in the treatment contrast across the two sites will provide more complete information to policy makers. 

What We Hope to Learn: Data will contribute to three categories of outcomes: (1) impact of type of service provided on long-term socioeconomic outcomes including family stability, housing security, and general well-being or life satisfaction; (2) impact of type of service provided on court outcomes; and (3) whether those randomly assigned to the Brief Advice Group acted on the advice.  We will combine administrative data, survey responses, and information from structured observations to create the full dataset.   

Research Team:
Access to Justice Lab
DC Legal Aid
Philadelphia Legal Aid

The Setting: The intervention offers counsel at first appearance for all offenses or not, selected by random assignment, in two counties in Texas.  If, by random assignment, counsel is present at first appearance, counsel will engage in initial client contact prior to the formal court appearance. During this time the attorney will engage in typical attorney-client behavior, studying case details and interviewing the defendant prior to representing the defendant during first appearance.  If a defendant is randomly assigned to the status quo, they proceed with no counsel at their first appearance.

The Problem: Despite the potential for pretrial incarceration, most states do not supply an attorney to advocate for a defendant’s release at this “first appearance.”[1] There is a presumption of innocence pretrial, and that presumption requires special circumstances for detention. Yet, without the assistance of counsel, defendants are ill-equipped to challenge the prospect of their own detention.[2] Thus, when considered alongside the idea that the first appearance amounts to a “trial-like confrontation,”[3] a growing chorus of legal scholarship contends that the first appearance is crucial to the integrity of an individual’s defense.[4] While the United States Supreme Court has not yet recognized a constitutional right to CAFA, specifically,[5] there is a growing sentiment that such counsel should be considered among Sixth Amendment guarantees. Following Gideon v. Wainwright[6] and its progeny indicating, inter alia, that the right to counsel extends to criminal proceedings in which a defendant faces a loss of freedom,[7] legal scholars argue that the potential for pre-trial detention is just such a loss of freedom. The theory runs that there is a risk of pre-trial detention, a loss of freedom, at the first appearance and thus this confrontation fits squarely within the directive of Gideon and Argersinger. Although systematic, rigorous analysis of the effects of CAFA is rare, some evidence regarding these programs exists.[8] While these extant studies are valuable, there is little causal evidence regarding the effects of CAFA. 

The Questions:

1. Does CAFA have an impact on bail and pretrial release conditions and decisions? Specifically, do defendants with CAFA exhibit higher rates of personal recognizance bonds and lower bond amounts than defendants without?  

2. For those who are released pre-trial, do defendants with CAFA exhibit lower FTA rates than those without such representation? 

3. Does CAFA impact case disposition, sentencing, or pre- or post-trial recidivism? 

4. Does CAFA have an effect on arrestees’ attitudes toward the legal system?  

5. Finally, what is the cost-benefit ratio for jurisdictions interested in piloting this program? 

The Study: The availability of counsel was randomized by days conditional over weeks. In other words, the days for which counsel was present during a given seven-day period was randomly varied across weeks – this protocol was necessary to ensure that systematic variance in criminological or judicial behaviors associated with certain weekdays was randomly distributed. This resulted in treating roughly half of all new cases during the enrollment period.  

What We Learned: Our findings show that the defense counsel’s impact on defendant outcomes is mixed. In both jurisdictions, defense counsel lowers the bond amount a defendant must pay to be released, but defense counsel only affects the type of the bond in one county (changing it from financial to non-financial). Attorneys do not make own (or personal) recognizance release more likely, and are successful in affecting the days to release in only one jurisdiction, with those effects on the mild side. Meanwhile, bond conditions increased in both number and severity in one jurisdiction but not in the other. Across both jurisdictions, there is no impact on recidivism, failure to appear (only measured in one jurisdiction), and disposition outcomes for defendants.

Overall, we conclude that attorneys had an impact on bond amounts, but depending on the jurisdiction may or may not impact bond type and release conditions and outcomes for defendants. These findings provide evidence that the impact of CAFA is (i) more limited than suggested in previous studies with less credible designs, and (ii) contingent on jurisdictional factors that are as yet poorly understood. We see our study as a step toward a better understanding of the role defense counsel plays at magistration, but given the contrary results we observe, more research is needed.

Research Team: The A2J Lab partnered with the Public Policy Research Institute at Texas A&M University to conduct the evaluation which occurred in two jurisdictions in Texas.

Resources:
George Naugal, Bethany Patterson, Renee Danser, D. James Greiner, “The Causal Impact of Counsel at First Appearance: Evidence from Two Randomized Control Trials,” IZA Institute of Labor Economics, Discussion Paper No. 17712, February 2025

The Setting: There are two ways to view this project. First, the ability to get married, and to get divorced, are both fundamental federal constitutional rights in the United States. But only the latter requires a lawsuit: marriage is the only contract that the contracting parties cannot dissolve on their own. The requirement that courts be involved in a divorce raises the possibility of access to justice problems for individuals who cannot afford to hire lawyers. Some state or local bar associations run services that attempt to match lawyers seeking certain kinds of pro bono matters (e.g., such as divorce) with clients who have that type of problem (e.g., needing a divorce). There has never been a credible assessment of whether this kind of pro bono matching program improves access to justice for low-income individuals with any legal problem, including divorce.

The second way to conceptualize this research focuses on using RCTs as measuring tools. All court systems have certain procedures, paperwork requirements, informational requirements, and more. All courts have pro se litigants attempting to navigate the system without a lawyer. No one has ever proposed a way to measure, quantitatively, whether a court system is accessible to its pro se litigants.

The Problem: This study addressed two problems. First, until this study, we did not know whether state or local bar association pro bono matching services were effective at providing access to justice to low-income individuals. Second, until this study, no one had ever proposed or implemented a quantitative way to measure the pro se accessibility of a court system.

Questions: This research investigates two questions. First, how effective are pro bono matching services at providing access to justice for no-asset, no-income, no-custody, no-protection-order, no-alimony, no-child-support, and no-spousal support divorces? Are lawyers even necessary in this setting, which consists entirely of providing relevant paperwork? Second, how can we measure the pro se accessibility of a court system?

The Study: This study focused on the Philly VIP’s pro bono matching service. During the enrollment period (early 2010s), low-income Philadelphians with divorce matters called Philly VIP to request a match to a pro bono attorney for assistance in obtaining divorces. Philly VIP was the provider of last resort for these cases: no other free legal services provider at this time handled simple divorce matters. The study population consisted of 311 Philadelphians randomized either to a Philly VIP attempt to match them to a pro bono attorney or to no such attempt. Subsequent analysis revealed that, overwhelmingly, study participants sought simple divorces and nothing else. No opposing spouse contested the divorce. There were no child custody, child support, spousal support, alimony, or domestic violence matters, and only a vanishingly small fraction of participants had either assets or income streams for division. In all participants’ cases combined, there were no live hearings, four contested motions filed, and one contested court ruling. In other words, the process of obtaining divorces was wholly and entirely a matter of providing the right paperwork at the right time. 

In addition, the A2J Lab proposed to define a court system as pro se accessible if an RCT revealed that the court’s adjudicatory outputs were “roughly the same” (a definition that required further elaboration) for litigants with lawyers versus litigants without lawyers. Thus, this study also demonstrated how an RCT with a traditional attorney-client relationship involved in one of its treatment conditions can serve as a measuring stick for the pro se accessibility of a court system, in this case the Philadelphia County divorce system in the early 2010s. 

What We Learned: Even though these divorce matters, with a tiny number of exceptions, entirely of providing the right paperwork to the court system at the right time, the Philly VIP pro bono matching service made an enormous difference. Study participants randomized to a Philly VIP attempt to match them to a pro bono attorney achieved divorces in Philadelphia County at approximately four times the rate of participants randomized to no such attempted match. If one includes divorces obtained in other Pennsylvania counties, the Philly-VIP attempted match group achieved divorces at twice the rate of the no-attempted-match group. These enormous differences in success rates provided quantitative evidence that at this time, the Philadelphia County divorce system was not pro se accessible. Subsequent investigation suggested that the reason for this pro se inaccessibility was likely the procedures applicable in this court at this time, which for example included a requirement that a pro se divorce seeker (i) file a paper called a “Praecipe To Transmit the Record to the Prothonotary” and (ii) find and use a typewriter to fill out a particular form. 

Research Team: 
D. James Greiner, Faculty Director, Access to Justice Lab; S. William Green Professor of Public Law, Harvard Law School
Roseanna Sommers, Assistant Professor of Law University of Michigan
Ellen Degnan, Senior Staff Attorney, Southern Poverty Law Center
Thomas Ferriss, Staff Data Scientist, Google
Philadelphia VIP

Resources:
Published version of the study: D. James Greiner, Ellen Degnan, Thomas Ferriss, and Rosenna Sommers, “Using random assignment to measure court accessibility for low-income divorce seekers,” PNAS April 6, 2021 118 (14)

Longer, unpublished writeup of the study: SRLN writeup of the study

Report of the study in The Atlantic

The Setting: Residential displacement can disrupt a host of life activities and undoubtedly takes an emotional toll on tenants and their families. To mitigate those impacts, we need to know more about how tenants find themselves as defendants in summary eviction proceedings, the role that lawyers play in stopping or delaying those proceedings, and whether existing legal solutions address the problems of eviction as we understand them.

The Questions: How well do lawyers allocate the scarce resource of their time? Does legal representation yield improved outcomes for those facing eviction?

The Study: With its field partners, the A2J Lab has designed a double-randomized study. This RCT will investigate (1) how well lawyers make decisions about whom to represent; and (2) whether outcomes with direct representation are measurably different from those where tenants only have access to self-help materials. After staff attorneys conduct intake and make provisional representation decisions, the A2J Lab will randomize each potential client into one of two groups (the first level of randomization). In the first group, the attorney’s decision will be followed; in the second group, another random decision will replace the attorney’s. Among that second group, a computer-based randomizer will “decide” whether the potential client receives an offer of representation or self-help materials (the second level of randomization).

What We Hoped to Learn: This RCT design was intended to help identify which eviction defendants’ outcomes truly depend on representation, whether those outcomes are continuances, stays of execution, or even possession of the apartment. It also was intended to reveal whether the offer of direct representation increases the probability of success relative to receiving the self-help packet. Considering the larger social impact of eviction, this study was expected to include non-adjudicatory outcomes measures such as the incidence of homelessness, unemployment, and adverse health effects, among other individual welfare consequences.

Research Team:
Access to Justice Lab
Rhode Island Center for Justice
Roger Williams University School of Law
New Mexico Legal Aid
University of New Mexico School of Law

The Setting: This research focuses on the effects of prompt access to quality representation in misdemeanors and petty offenses in Nairobi, Kenya and Tunis and Sousse, Tunisia. The International Legal Foundation (“ILF”) provides the holistic public defense model of representation that is the subject of the evaluation. The ILF strives to provide quality representation at the earliest point possible in the justice system process where release and avoidance of unnecessary pre-trial detention exists. In Tunisia, that is at the police station after arrest. In Kenya that is at the first court appearance.

The Problem: In both locations, the number of low- and middle-income individuals not able to afford counsel on their own in misdemeanor and petty offense criminal matters far exceeds the capacity of the ILF offices. Despite a National Legal Aid Act in Kenya and a right to counsel codified in both nations, there are virtually no government-paid lawyers for the accused who cannot afford them. In practice, lawyers are not appointed in misdemeanor or petty offense cases notwithstanding a right to such counsel on paper, principally because those in the system know that counsel is not presently available. Thus, even in Tunisia, where the ILF is established, the present standard of care for the accused is more often than not no counsel.

In addition, while there is some research suggesting that early provision of counsel improves the criminal justice outcomes for the accused, that research (i) is sporadic, (ii) was generated entirely in the United States legal setting, (iii) provides no information at all on whether improvement in criminal justice outcomes translates into better socioeconomic outcomes, and (iv) does not address cost effectiveness.

The Questions: We hypothesize that adding quality representation at this stage will increase release without bail or other conditions and will result in decreased time to disposition and decreased days of incarceration. We expect in both locations that because criminal justice outcomes improve, resulting in fewer days of incarceration and less time awaiting disposition, economic welfare will improve. We further hypothesize that prompt access to quality representation will create more transparency between the justice system and the accused, creating greater trust in the system itself. Finally, we expect family stability to improve when periods of incarceration decrease.

The Study: In Tunisia, partners in government institutions and civil society, as well as police themselves, notify the ILF when accused are arrested and awaiting prosecutorial review. This referral happens within 24 hours for infractions and 72 hours for misdemeanors. The ILF attorneys conduct an intake interview with detained potential clients at the police station. Because the police allow only attorneys to meet with detainees, the ILF attorneys themselves conduct an informed consent process.

In Nairobi, Kenya, the ILF attorneys appear at the courthouse to learn which clients need prompt access to quality representation. To explain, within 24 hours of an arrest (usually), the police transport an accused to the court for a “first appearance” hearing, at which a judge considers whether to release the defendant. In Kenya, a release order is conditional on the defendant’s posting monetary bail, and thus such “release” is frequently illusory because few defendants have the required amount in liquid assets. Before and around the first appearance hearing, both paralegals and attorneys are permitted access to detainees. The ILF will station paralegals at the courthouse to conduct an informed consent process.

Consenting study participants are randomly assigned to either the Enhanced Services Group, where they receive the full suite of ILF services, or the Status Quo Group, where they do not receive ILF services.

What We’ll Learn: Primary outcomes include whether early intervention of counsel reduces the number of days of incarceration pre-trial^[1] improve final dispositions, and improves time to disposition. Secondary outcomes include whether there is a concomitant effect on trust in the judicial system and socio-economic welfare (such as family security), with the hypothesis that both will improve.

[1] We prefer to use the number of days of pre-trial incarceration, rather than whether a judge orders release at a first appearance hearing, as a measure of counsel’s effectiveness because at least in the United States, defendants released pre-trial are frequently re-arrested (or re-incarcerated for failure to appear at a hearing), making an exclusive focus on the judge’s first appearance decision a misleading measure of what the defendant experiences pre-trial.

The Research Team:
D. James Greiner, Faculty Director, Access to Justice Lab; S. William Green Professor of Public Law, Harvard Law School
Renee L. Danser, Associate Director of Research and Strategic Partnerships, Access to Justice Lab
International Legal Foundation
Lenson Njogu, OGW, C. Med. (Kenya)
Global Assistance & Consulting (Tunisia)