January 18, 2018

Vision and Mission

The Need
In most states, 80% or more of family law cases involve at least one unrepresented party, yet we have no knowledge of how to structure and deliver legal self-help materials. In every state, demand for legal services outstrips supply to such an extent that providers must triage civil and criminal clients, yet we have insufficient knowledge of how to triage well, or even what it means to triage well. In all states, resource scarcity compels providers to deploy varying levels and types of service.

The access to justice gap in the U.S. is only growing wider. The magnitude of the problem is staggering.1 In 2017:

71% of low-income households have experienced a civil legal problem in the past year.

• Low-income Americans seek professional legal help for only 20% of the civil legal problems they face

86% of the civil legal problems reported by low-income Americans in the past year received inadequate or no legal help

At the same time, there are more and more proposed access-to-justice interventions. The problem is that decision makers in the U.S. justice system lack sufficiently rigorous evidence about the impacts of these potential solutions.

The Vision
By providing decision makers with scientific evidence about what works in access to justice, we can make the justice system work better for everyone. This kind of information—the kind that comes from randomized control trials and rigorous qualitative evidence—will allow people with the power to make change to implement solutions that really make a difference.

The Method
The Access to Justice Lab advances the required transformation by implementing randomized control trials (RCTs) to find what works and then generalizing results into actionable lessons. The A2J Lab creates knowledge, constructs best practices, and trains current and future scholars and practitioners in order to transform the U.S. justice system. We design and test our own access-to-justice interventions (such as self-help materials) and test interventions designed by our partners to learn what works best for individuals and families.

More and more people in law are advocating for evidence-based solutions. This is the system’s moment of transformation, and it’s critically important that the field defines what passes for “evidence” in law in a way that means relying only on credible information about what works. Randomized evaluations, not observational studies, create this type of evidence. RCTs ensure that the impacts we observe are caused by the interventions we deploy. This causal information allows policymakers to expend resources only on what truly works.

22 for 2022
To create and utilize the knowledge base necessary to transform the justice system, the profession needs both a strong database of rigorous information about what works and a coalition of decision makers using that information to create a more just system. By 2022, we hope to have 22 of our own studies either completed or in the field. We also seek to have 15 academic partners with their own studies in the field and 20 jurisdictions engaged in randomized evaluations. Achieving these goals will help create a body of evidence large enough to facilitate real change.

The History
In no field is resistance to rigorous, empirical data stronger than in United States legal practice. For more than a century, U. S. legal and adjudicatory practices have reflected an ethos of professionalism in which individual lawyers and judges purport to make irreducibly complex judgments about each client’s or litigant’s legal needs and the merits of their claims. The belief is that only a lawyer knows what is best for a client, and the only person a lawyer should listen to about her client’s legal needs is another lawyer. As a result, law currently recognizes only two sources of truth about what works and what doesn’t:  (i) the pronouncements of legal elites, and (ii) each individual lawyer’s or judge’s own personal experience.

Almost a century ago, U.S. medicine was the same. In  the 1920s and 1930s, doctors thought that they alone, as professionals, knew what was best for patients, and that no non-physician could say anything useful to improve professional medical judgments. In this time period, medicine recognized only two sources of truth about what worked:  (i) the pronouncements of medical elites, and (ii) each physician’s own personal experiences with “his” particular patients.

Medicine transformed itself from an art into (more of) a science. Law is a field equally charged with making life-or-death decisions and is also equally capable of changing into a research-based profession.

Statistics from The Justice Gap: Measuring the Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-income Americans, Legal Services Corporations (2017) https://www.lsc.gov/sites/default/files/images/TheJusticeGap-FullReport.pdf