Technology and Access to Justice May 6, 2003 By Christy Brown

1. Technology and Access to Justice May 6, 2003 By Christy Brown

2. Technology and Access to Justice: Ensuring that Legal Service Providers’ push for technology does not disenfranchise the client community from access to justice • The more valuable legal information and assistance goes exclusively online, the less opportunity for judicial access exist for the offline population notwithstanding that technology is more efficient, and readily accessible 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; but this is of no consequence if the targeted community cannot get access to the technology Technology and Access to Justice

3. Paper Subsections • The technologies employed by legal service providers • The relationship between technology, digital divide, and client community • The adverse affects: revamped and increased access barriers • Ways to eliminate access barriers Technology and Access to Justice

4. Technology • Electronic Filing • Standardize court filing process • Immediate access from any location • Public Access Kiosks • Ideal in areas of low population density • Convenient locations: courts, community centers, libraries, supermarkets • Problem: cost prohibitive; who pays? • Internet Self-help sites • Free access to legal information • Great assistance tool for secondary providers • Encompasses the largest audience and user traffic Technology and Access to Justice

5. Public Access Kiosks: The Present Technology and Access to Justice

6. Public Access Kiosks: The Future Technology and Access to Justice

7. Technology, Digital Divide and Client Community • Digital Divide: the expanding gap between the digital have and the have-nots • The Offline Population: • Correlation between income and Internet usage: 75 % of low income individuals are non-Internet users • Correlation between education and Internet usage: 60% with high school diploma or equivalent are non-Internet users • Correlation between race and Internet usage: 60.2% of African-Americans, 68.4% of Hispanics (85.9% if Spanish only) are non-Internet users Technology and Access to Justice

8. Technology, Digital Divide, and Client Community • Client Community • Demographics: female, low-income, high school diploma- 34% • Internet usage: none in the home or elsewhere- 44%; public libraries- 20%; community centers- well under 0.6% Technology and Access to Justice

9. Adverse Affects: Revamped the old and created the new access barriers • Revamped Barriers: • Physical • Disabled are online 50% less than the national average; elderly individuals • Geographical • Rural residents are less likely to have Internet access in the home • Lack of available locations and convenient times for public access kiosks • Lingual • 94% of commerce on web is English-only; 85.9% Spanish-only are offline Technology and Access to Justice

10. Adverse Affects: Revamped the old and created the new access barriers cont’d • Newly created barriers: • Availability of Internet access in low-income communities • Web content and interfaces do not conform to those with limited literacy and language skills • Lack of convenient access to Internet locations • Lack of outreach and personal assistance • Infringe fundamental right of access to justice (TBOR) Technology and Access to Justice

11. Ways to eliminate access barriers • Evaluation • Fulfill its overall mission to ensure judicial access? • Client community awareness of available legal resources? • Examine reasons for non-usage? • Strategic relationships • Pool resources • Share in computer lab expenses, labor • Bookmark legal websites on computers • Refocus financial resources • Technology Opportunity Program (TOP) • Technology Initiative Grants (TIG) Technology and Access to Justice

12. “Imagine what will happen if everyone is included. Imagine what will happen if everyone has access to justice. Imagine what will happen if the quality of justice gets better and better.” - Access to Justice Board, Washington State Technology and Access to Justice

13. FCC Chairman Powell stated, “the digital divide [is] a dangerous phrase because it could be used to justify government entitlement programs that guaranteed poor people cheaper access to new technology, like digital television sets or computers. ‘I think there is a Mercedes divide. I'd like to have one; I can't afford one. I'm not meaning to be completely flip about this. I think it's an important social issue. But it shouldn't be used to justify the notion of essentially the socialization of the deployment of the infrastructure.” - New York Times Feb 7, 2001. Technology and Access to Justice