No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“Tighten, Cull and Focus”: An Experiment Examining Lay and Lawyer Claims in a Mock Online Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2022
Abstract
Governments are turning to online self-help courts in an effort to cut costs, increase access to the justice system, and, in response to the global pandemic, to reduce physical contact. But to what extent do these courts support pro se or self-represented litigants? This article reports a laboratory experiment which compared how laypeople (pro se) and lawyers explained the same justiciable problem in a mock online court portal. Retired judges also evaluated a subset of blinded claims and provided opinions on their quality. The study found that the overall quality of laypeople’s claiming was lower than lawyers but there were outliers: both high-quality lay-filed claims and low-quality lawyer-filed claims. Laypeople were not as good at reporting legally salient details and showed confusion about corporate responsibility. When laypeople did report legally salient detail, they sometimes did so without a clear purpose or did so unclearly, confusing the reader. The quality of lawyer-filed claims varied and some created overly complex claims that would be uneconomic to litigate. We suggest that designers of online courts can use the evidence from this experiment, and future research like it, to build interfaces that will assist pro se or self-represented to more clearly explain their disputes.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Bar Foundation
Footnotes
We thank Kayla Stewart and Louisa Choe for their research assistance, Kelly Byrne for advice on statistical analysis, Jake Ingram for his role as research confederate, Allie Cunninghame and Rosemary Robertson for advice on the problem design, and our anonymous reviewers for their very helpful feedback on this article. We also thank the retired judges for providing an evaluation of a subset of the claims. Finally, we thank all the participants for taking the time to be part of the experiment. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee Approval 17/157. Funding was provided by the New Zealand Law Foundation (Grant number 17/ILP/11).
References
Acland-Hood, Susan. “Shaping Change Around Users Increases Efficiency too.” Inside HMCTS, May 14, 2018a. https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2018/05/14/shaping-change-around-users-increases-efficiency-too.Google Scholar
Acland-Hood, Susan. “Humanising the Justice System.” Inside HMCTS, December 1, 2018b. insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2018/12/01/humanising-the-justice-system.Google Scholar
Acland-Hood, Susan. “How Do We Work Out When to Stick, and When to Twist?” Inside HMCTS, February 28, 2019. https://insidehmcts.blog.gov.uk/2019/02/28/how-do-we-work-out-when-to-stick-and-when-to-twist.Google Scholar
Amsler, Lisa Blomgren, Janet, Martinez, and Smith, Stephanie E.. Dispute System Design: Preventing, Managing, and Resolving Conflict. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrom, Natalie. Developing the Detail: Evaluating the Impact of Court Reform in England and Wales on Access to Justice. London: Legal Education Foundation, 2019. https://research.thelegaleducationfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Developing-the-Detail-Evaluating-the-Impact-of-Court-Reform-in-England-and-Wales-on-Access-to-Justice-FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Cambridge Pro Bono Project. A Comparative Analysis of Online Dispute Resolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 2019.Google Scholar
Cappelletti, Mauro, and Bryant, Garth. “Access to Justice: The Newest Wave in the Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective.” Buffalo Law Review 27, no. 2 (1978):181–292.Google Scholar
Conley, John, and William, O’Barr. Rules Versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Edited by O’Barr, William and Conley, John, Language and Legal Discourse. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Costantino, Cathy, and Christina, Sickles Merchant. Designing Conflict Management Systems: A Guide to Creating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
Dewar, John, Barry, Smith, and Cate, Banks. Litigants in Person in the Family Court of Australia. Canberra, Australia: Family Court of Australia, Research Report No. 20, 2000.Google Scholar
Felstiner, William L.F., Abel, Richard L., and Austin, Sarat. “Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming ….” Law & Society Review 15, nos. 3/4 (1980): 631–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graneheim, Ulla, Britt-Marie, Lindgren, and Berit, Lundman. “Methodological Challenges in Qualitative Content Analysis: A Discussion Paper.” Nurse Education Today 56 (2017): 29–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagan, Margaret. “A Human-Centered Design Approach to Access to Justice: Generating New Prototypes and Hypotheses for Interventions to Make Courts User-Friendly.” Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality 6, no. 2 (2018): 199–239.Google Scholar
Hodges, Christopher. “Proposed Modernisation of Courts in England & Wales: IT and the Online Court.” International Journal of Procedural Law 6, no. 1 (2016): 149–63.Google Scholar
Hornikx, Jos, and Ulrike, Hahn. “Reasoning and Argumentation: Towards an Integrated Psychology of Argumentation.” Thinking and Reasoning 18, no. 3: (2012): 225–43. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2012.674715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katsh, Ethan, and Colin, Rule. “What We Know and Need to Know About Online Dispute Resolution.” South Carolina Law Review 67, no. 2 (2016): 329–44.Google Scholar
Kimbell, Lucy. “Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I.” Design and Culture 3, no. 3: (2011): 285–306. doi: 10.2752/175470811X13071166525216
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kós, Justice. “Civil Justice: Haves, Have-nots and What to Do About Them.” Paper Presented at the Arbitrators’ & Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand and International Academy of Mediators Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand, March 2016. www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/speechpapers/hjk-2.pdf.Google Scholar
Landis, J. Richard, and Koch, Gary G.. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.” Biometrics 33, no.1: (1977): 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loebl, Zbynëk. Designing Online Courts: The Future of Justice Is Open to All. Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer, 2019.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, Julie. Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants: Final Report. Ontario, Canada: National Self-Represented Litigants Project, 2013. https://www.srln.org/node/1477/report-national-self%E2%80%90represented-litigants-project-identifying-and-meeting-needs-self-.Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
McHugh, Mary L. “Interrater Reliability: The Kappa tatistic.” Biochemia medica 22, no. 3: (2012): 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeever, Gráinne, Lucy, Royal-Dawson, Eleanor, Kirk, and John, McCord. Litigants in Person in Northern Ireland: Barriers to Legal Participation. Belfast, Ireland: Ulster University, 2018.Google Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth. The Language of Law School: Learning to “Think Like a Lawyer.” Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moorhead, Richard. “The Passive Arbiter: Litigants in Person and the Challenge to Neutrality.” Social and Legal Studies 17, no. 3 (2007): 405–24.Google Scholar
Moorhead, Richard, and Mark, Sefton. Litigants in Person: Unrepresented Litigants in First Instance Proceedings. DCA Research Series 2/05. London: United Kingdom Department of Constitutional Affairs, 2005. https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/2956/1/1221.pdf.Google Scholar
Moorhead, Richard, Mark, Sefton, and Lesley, Scanlan. “Just Satisfaction? What Drives Public and Participant Satisfaction with the Courts and Tribunals.” SSRN Electronic Journal, London: Ministry of Justice, Research Report 5/08 (2008). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2425127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oleinik, Anton. “Mixing Quantitative and Qualitative Content Analysis: Triangulation at Work.” Quality and Quantity 45, no. 4: (2011): 859–73. doi: 10.1007/s11135-010-9399-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quintanilla, Victor D., Allen, Rachel A., and Hirt, Edward R.. “The Signaling Effect of Pro se Status.” Law and Social Inquiry 42, no. 4 (2017): 1091–121.Google Scholar
Rhode, Deborah. Access to Justice. Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Rozenberg, Joshua. “The Online Court: Will IT work.” Legal Education Foundatio. Last modified July 2020. https://long-reads.thelegaleducationfoundation.org.Google Scholar
Salter, Sharon, and Darin, Thompson. “Public-Centered Civil Justice Redesign: A Case Study of the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal.” McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution 3 (2016–2017): 113–52.Google Scholar
Sela, Ayelet. “Streamlining Justice: How Online Courts Can Resolve the Challenges of Pro Se Litigation.” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 26 (2016): 331–88.Google Scholar
Shanahan, Collelen, and Anna, Carpenter. “Simplified Courts Can’t Solve Inequality.” Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 148, no. 1 (2019): 128–35. doi: 10.1162/DAED_a_00545.Google Scholar
Stemler, Steven E., and Tsai, Jessica. “Best Practices in Interrater Reliability Three Common Approaches.” In Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, 29–49. Edited by Osborne, Jason. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. “Nudging: A Very Short Guide” Journal of Consumer Policy 37 (2014): 583–88. doi: 10.1007/s10603-014-9273-1
Google Scholar
Susskind, Richard. Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, Katie, Rebecca, Dickson, and Sarah, Ewart. “User Experiences of British Columbia’s Online Civil Resolution Tribunal.” Paper presented at the Law and Society Association Conference, Online, May 2020.Google Scholar
Thaler, Richard, Sunstein, Cass R., and John, Balz. “Choice Architecture.” In The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy, 428–39. Edited by Shafir, Eldar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tillers, Peter, and David, Schum. “A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation.” UC Davis Law Review 24, no. 4 (1991): 931–1012.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, Joe. Justice and the Digital State: Assessing the Next Revolution in Administrative Justice. Bristol, UK; Chicago: Bristol Policy Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Toy-Cronin, Bridgette. “I Ain’t No Fool: Deciding to Litigate in Person in the Civil Courts.” New Zealand Law Review 4 (2016): 723–54.Google Scholar
Trinder, Liz, Rosemary, Hunter, Emma, Hitchings, Joanna, Miles, Richard, Moorhead, Leanne, Smith, Mark, Sefton, Victoria, Hinchly, and Julia, Pearce. Litigants in Person in Private Family Law Cases. London: Ministry of Justice, United Kingdom, 2014.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Boom, Willem H., Pieter, Desmet, and Peter, Mascini. “Empirical Legal Research: Charting the Terrain.” In Empirical Legal Research in Action: Reflections on Methods and their Applications, 1–22. Edited by Willem, H. van Boom, Pieter Desmet, and Mascini, Peter. Online: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, Lord. Access to Justice: Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1995.Google Scholar
Young, Peter, and Hugh, Selby. Rose’s Pleadings without Tears in Australia: A Guide to Legal Drafting. 9th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Zajac, Rachel, and Harlene, Hayne. “I Don’t Think That’s What Really Happened: The Effect of Cross-Examination on the Accuracy of Children’s Reports.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 9, no. 3 (2003): 187–95.Google ScholarPubMed
Zorza, Richard. The Self Help Friendly Court: Designed from the Ground Up to Work for People Without Lawyers. Williamsburg, VA: The National Centre for State Courts, 2002. https://www.srln.org/node/23/self-help-friendly-court-designed-ground-work-people-without-lawyers.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Adrian. “No Justice Without Lawyers—The Myth of an Inquisitorial System.” Civil Justice Quarterly 33 (2014): 355–74.Google Scholar