Work Group 2A – Assuring a Consumer Friendly System – Final Report

Work Group Charge - The law and process are complicated and not easily understood. How do we make the current system more accessible and user-friendly and remove barriers that, for some, appear insurmountable?  

Work Group Participants Include:

Hon. Joseph Jabar, Chair; Jane Clayton, Vice Chair: Jeff Ashby, Staff

Members – Mary Kathryn Brennan, Hugh Calkins, Peter Darvin, Leslie Dickinson; John Foster, Beth Gallie, Jeff Henthorn, Dolly Hersom, James McKenna, Noelle Merrill, Peter Rice, Meryl Troop


CONSUMER FRIENDLY ON-LINE AND
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES SUB-COMMITTEE

TOP FIVE PRIORITIES

This report is intended to amplify and incorporate our earlier, attached, template report. It emphasizes the two areas we feel need the most attention. With them in place, we believe the remaining issues and strategies will fall more easily into place.

Priority 1

Increase funding for efforts to aggressively pursue technologies for providing client services. Provide direct funding for such efforts through the Maine Bar Foundation and/or the Maine Civil Legal Services Fund.

Why this is most important:

The potential of technology to provide legal information, advice and access to justice for the low-income community in Maine is underutilized and inadequate resources are deployed to leverage these technologies. Maine has been a national leader in the use of technology to provide client services. However, many states are passing Maine by because they are providing far more resources for technology. We need to continue our highly respected ongoing efforts, but at the same time provide resources for the development of new technologies. Particularly in the use of video and interactive client tools we could be doing more to greatly enhance services to our clients. More of our client-oriented technology effort needs to be for the benefit of all providers.

Short Term Action Steps (and long term):

With increased IOLTA (Interest On Lawyers Trust Accounts) resources, directly fund, through the Maine Bar Foundation, a Client Technology Resources Center (to be housed at Pine Tree Legal Assistance because of the existing in house expertise) to support the maintenance and development of client-oriented technology for all legal aid providers.

The new technologies we recommend to receive focused short-term attention are these (but not to the exclusion of others):

v     Use of video for client education materials
-- Video is often a much more effective method of communicating information, particularly for clients with limited literacy skills.
-- A good example of what other states are doing is the Illinois Legal Aid video "Tips For Going To Court" found here. [i]
-- Even more effective will be examples and demonstrations: "Where do you sit?" "Don't look like this." "Asking a question." Etc.

v     Coordinated on-line intake for all providers (and other agencies)
-- The Volunteer Lawyers Project is in the process of developing a system of on-line intake to be used first by volunteer intake workers, then by other agencies and attorneys, and finally by clients. This system will be an important stem toward freeing intake workers from data entry tasks and allowing them to focus on solving client problems. It will also provide a new and important means of access to VLP services for clients around the state.
-- The system will be relatively easily adaptable for organizations using the same case management system as the VLP, such as LSE, PTLA, KIDS Legal and the Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic. It will require more effort, but it is possible to extend it to organizations other data management systems.
-- With careful attention to issues of privacy and confidentiality, this could lead to the development of a central intake data repository which the client could use to provide information to different agencies, all seeking to collect essentially the dame data.
-- You can look at the prototype (not fully developed) VLP intake system here.*

v     Interactive client education and forms preparation responsive to and individual client's specific situation.
-- The interactive forms on the PTLA website are very heavily used by pro se litigants and lawyers alike. There are far more sophisticated and user friendly systems of on-line document preparation now being developed in other states. These guide a user through the process by asking a series of questions and use the answers to populate the forms. The most user-friendly systems use a sort of cartoon guide or avatar to walk the user through the system. These systems also allow a user to save encrypted, password protected, data on line for use in other forms or for later editing.
-- You can explore Idaho's use of the A2J forms preparation system here.*
-- These same systems will allow us to provide automated on-line information to clients based on the specific facts of their individual situation, freeing the staff of our organizations from answering often repeated simple questions and allowing us to use our limited resources for more difficult and complex legal issues.
-- The Food Stamp Estimators available on the LSE (here)* and PTLA (here)* websites are examples of this. They gather the specific details of site users' household and income situation and provide the user with precise information about their eligibility for food stamps based on the statutes and regulations specifically applied to their situation.

Any Rule Change or Legislation Needed?

v     The Maine Supreme Judicial Court is likely within the next few months to adopt mandatory and comparability IOLTA rules providing for mandatory participation of all attorney trust accounts in interest bearing accounts paying rates comparable to those paid the financial institution's corporate clients.

Who Needs To Be Doing What?

v     The Maine Bar Foundation needs to modify its funding policy to provide direct funding for client-oriented technology efforts. It is estimated that between $250,000 and $300,000 per year are needed to fund this effort.

v     The Maine Bar Foundation, the Maine Civil Legal Services Fund and legal aid providers need to explore additional sources of funding for specific projects such as the possibility of a contribution from the Attorney General's office for consumer-oriented efforts.

 Evaluation and Monitoring

Each of these technologies, and others that will be developed through the Client Technology Resources Center, will need to be closely monitored for use, and reviewed with client focus groups for usability, readability, accessibility, and overall usefulness. A system should be developed to contact a representative sample of clients using these systems to determine the impact on the clients.

Priority 2

Utilize the latest technology to provide direct access to justice for our client populations.

Short term action steps:

v     Pursue coordinated on-line intake for all providers (and other agencies) - (see above)

Long term action steps:

v     State agencies providing services to the low-income community need to allow remote application

v     The Judicial Branch needs to plan for and provide electronic filing of documents in a way that includes, rather than excludes low-income and pro se litigants.

This will entail considerable expense. A legislative or judicial study group should be convened to look at electronic filing in other states, determine costs and draft proposed rules.

v     The Judicial Branch needs to provide remote videoconferenced hearing capacity that will include remote access points for low-income pro se litigants.

Videoconferencing capability has already been deployed to most, if not all courts in the State. As the Courts begin to allow remote participation in hearings we must be certain that this is not available only to large law firms, but to pro se litigants, as well. Remote access points must be created for locations where courts have been closed (e.g., Bar Harbor) or where travel to Court is a hardship (e.g., Jackman, Family Violence Shelters, etc.)

Any Rule Change or Legislation Needed?

v     A Legislative or Executive branch commission needs to be created to study the use of technology to provide remote access to services provided by state agencies and the Judicial Branch.

Evaluation and Monitoring

As these new technology portals are developed they need to be monitored on an ongoing basis to evaluate and ensure their benefit to the low-income client community. This can be done by client-user interviews and surveys and other evaluative techniques. * * *

* If you are looking at a printed version of this document the links to the resources referred to are:

** IOLTA interest is used by the Maine Bar Foundation to fund legal aid efforts. Because of ethical issues trust account interest cannot be retained by the law firms.

 

REPORT OF THE CONSUMER FRIENDLY ON-LINE AND TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES SUB-COMMITTEE OF GROUP 2A

Issue

 

Strategies

 

People/Resources Involved

Other

 

1) There is haphazard communication and coordination among those who are providing on-line and other technology assisted resources to the low-income community in Maine. In some areas of law important to this community there are simply no resources.

 

 

 

 

Create a technology assisted resource coordinating group with authority to make certain that each provider produces and keeps up to date on-line and other technology assisted resources in their area of expertise and to see that there are no gaps in the provision of resources.

 

v      All providers of on-line legal resources in Maine, including

Ø       PTLA

Ø       LSE

Ø       VLP

Ø       MEJP

Ø       DRC

Ø       ILAP

Ø       Attorney General

Ø       Judicial Branch

Ø       MSBA

Ø       State Agencies

§         DHHS

§         DOL

§         DOE

Ø       MCEDV

Ø       Maine Center on Deafness

Ø       Others

v      JAG

v      Funders

 

This group should have some stature, authority and accountability so that the participant organizations will take seriously their obligation. Resources would be great, as well. Otherwise it will have to draw on the resources of the participating organizations. To create the stature and accountability appointment by and reporting to JAG might help.

 

This group should consider and encourage further sharing of technology resources among the providers and among other relevant organizations such as the MSBA, MTLA, the courts and social agencies.

 

2) The potential of technology to provide legal information, advice and access to justice for the low-income community in Maine is underutilized and inadequate resources are deployed to leverage these technologies.

 

The potential of technology to facilitate sharing of data is also underutilized. This includes sharing of form data for electronic forms with other forms prepared by the same individual as well as sharing of data between agencies. A robust system of data sharing would benefit clients, providers and agencies.

Increase funding to aggressively pursue all available technologies to provide the best possible information, advice, assistance, representation and access to justice for our client populations in the most cost effective manner. Suggestions in this area include the following:

v      Analyze the relative cost and benefit to the client population of technology-assisted information and pro-se assistance, and if appropriate, have the providers and funders reallocate more (or fewer) resources to these efforts (if this can be done efficiently, effectively and relatively inexpensively).

v      Audio and Video (produce client materials in audio and video formats so that the information can be even more available to low-literacy clients and things can be shown and demonstrated rather than just written about)

v      News Blogs (where important items are posted by legal services staff and discussed by the client population and the public)

v      Highly interactive client education materials and forms preparation (utilize the document assembly system now used by Pine Tree's Food Stamp Estimators (or other interactive systems) to produce self-help interviews that provide information, forms preparation and advice that is specific to an individual client's situation)

v      Explore the use of other technologies such as on-demand cable TV, pod casting and cell phone access to information (audio, video and text), and other technologies yet unthought of.

v      Develop a system in which interactive form data can be utilized by a client for other forms that client needs to prepare.

v      Develop a system, with adequate confidentiality protections, for sharing client information among providers, the courts and state agencies.

As new funding becomes available, relieve the burden on individual organizations by directly funding technology development that benefits the client population and the providers generally.

v      Legal Services Providers (see item 1)

v      JAG

v      Funders

Effective pursuit and utilization of technology resources may require increases in funding that the individual organizations are unable to provide.

 

A system of data sharing among providers and other agencies will have to be carefully thought out with regard to issues of client confidentiality.

3) Many low-income consumers of on-line and other technology assisted services have barriers such as language, literacy, education, physical handicap and others that make utilization of on-line and other technology assisted resources difficult.

Ensure that all self-help and pro se resources meet standards of accessibility, readability and usability appropriate to the media by which they are made available. See that insofar as possible resources are made available in all the major primary languages in the client community.

 

Continue and monitor the commitment of the courts, state agencies and legal services providers to ensure there are no barriers to physical access for people with disabilities.

v      Legal Services Providers

v      Interpreter Resouces

v      JAG

v      Funders

v      Accessibility means making certain that all on-line and other technology assisted resources meet appropriate accessibility standards such as Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and the WWW accessibility standards. We want to ensure that they can be used by all populations regardless of any physical impairment such as vision or hearing.

v      Readability means making certain that all self-help and pro se resources are written to be readable by low-literacy clients. This includes written (paper) as well as electronic, audio or video materials.

v      Usability means making certain that all technology assisted resources are easily findable and understandable by clients with little technology sophistication.

 

Some standards are already developed like §508 and the W3 standards. Generally Kathleen Caldwell (a national leader in readability issues) encourages a goal of a 5th grade, but no higher that 8th grade, reading level for a low-income client population. There are a couple of measurement tools built into most word processors, but some understanding of the principles is necessary for content developers. There are no real "standards" yet for usability, but most of us can recognize materials with usability issues when we see them.

 

To ensure accountability it would be good to have content providers (including the courts) report annually (or occasionally) to some "authority" -- perhaps JAG or the coordinating group suggested above.

 

4) Barriers of distance, disability, transportation, child care, expense, personal safety, lost income from employment and others inhibit or make difficult access to legal and governmental services for many Maine citizens in the low-income community.

Utilize the latest technology to provide direct access to justice for our client populations.

 

v      Maine State Government

Ø       Judicial Branch

Ø       Executive Branch

§         DHHS

§         DOL

§         MHRC

§         Others

v      Legal Services Providers

v      JAG

v      Funders (including legislative funding)

Parts of this item may be in the purview of Group 2B, and should, at least be coordinated with that Group.

 

This technology should include:

v      Electronic court filing (allow pro se clients (and lawyers) to file documents with the courts electronically - this is a natural extension of the on-line forms that are increasingly available and useful)

v      Electronic administrative agency application and communication (allow clients to submit benefit applications and other materials for administrative agencies electronically)

v      On-line and vidoeconferenced access to court and administrative hearings (as interactive video becomes more and more available, allow clients to participate in court hearings, administrative hearings and caseworker conferences via on-line access)

v      On-line intake (develop a system of on-line intake so that the services of the legal services providers are available to all Maine residents regardless of whether they are near an office)

v      On-line chat (where clients can ask questions of live legal services staff and get live, immediate responses)

 

Three of these items require substantial commitment, cooperation and investment of both time and money from the courts and state agencies.  This is a direction we believe they will have to take at some point. These are things that other states are undertaking now. When they are done, they will be of great benefit to the people of Maine and to the courts and agencies themselves. We need to identify ways to coordinate, encourage and fund efforts in these directions.

  * * *

REPORT OF THE “TRAINING AND EDUCATION TO PROVIDE A CONSUMER FRIENDLY SYSTEM” SUB-COMMITTEE OF GROUP 2A

I.                   List of Recommendations

                 a.       Training and Educating Court Personnel on JAG Resources

b.      Training and Educating Court Personnel on Aspects of the System that Create Bias and Inequity

c.       Creating and Delivering Substantive and Procedural Trainings for Pro Se Litigants / Creating a Set of Courses that Could be Taken on a Mandatory or Voluntary Basis in Conjunction With Certain Court Actions

d.      Making the System More Consumer Friendly

  II.               Training and Educating Court Personnel on JAG Resources

 a.       Issue: Court Personnel need to be aware of the availability of the resources that JAG creates. To reach the highest number of pro se litigants, all “gatekeepers” in the courthouse should have an easy JAG reference guide for clients looking for assistance in handling their cases without representation. (The resources that will be made available are being developed by other subgroups).

                    b.      Short Term Strategies: 

·        Determine what the JAG resources will be.

·        Identify who will create each of the resources. It is important to spread the work among organizations, and to tap into the expertise of various organizations.

·        Create a clear set of expectations as to what resources will be available and when they will be available. (For internet resources, availability will be constant. For other resources like classes, however, there must be a clear direction as to who can be contacted with questions and when they will be available to answer questions.)

·        Identifying and creating a survey of (non-technological) resources already in existence. 

c.       “Medium Term” Strategies: 

·        Find a company (or organization) that will produce JAG promotional materials.

·        Create a Public Relations Piece, that will be available at courthouses and the offices of legal service providers. This piece should identify all of the resources offered through implementation of the JAG initiative, and instructions on how to access them.

·        Modify the piece so it can be posted on the internet and web accessible.

·        Review all of the documents mentioned above for readability and accessibility.

d.      Long Term Strategies: 

·        Maintaining current materials.

·        Keeping Clerks, Judges, Justices, Mediators, Family Law Magistrates, Administrative Hearing Officers, Secretaries, and Security Personnel informed of the services offered by the JAG initiative.

·        Having one JAG employee who can serve as the contact person for questions about the resources. 

e.       Strategies for Gauging Success: 

·        Surveys distributed at the clerk’s office asking which services the client used.

·        Trial Judges / Justices asking whether pro se litigants had used JAG resources, and providing them with a sheet for tracking.

·        Client surveys.

·        Monitors to make sure that the judiciary is asking whether pro se litigants had used JAG resources. 

f.        Primary Responsible Party:  

·        JAG would be primarily responsible for delegating these duties. 

g.       Participating Parties: 

·        Justice Action Group

·        Funders

·        Attorney General’s Office

·        CAP Agencies

·        Attorneys

·        Court Personnel

·        Judges / Justices

·        Mediators

·        Family Law Magistrates

·        Administrative Hearing Officers

·        Clerks

·        Secretaries

·        National Association of Legal Secretaries (NALS)

·        Security Personnel

·        Interpreter Resources

·        Maine Center on Deafness

·        Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence

·        Pine Tree Legal Assistance

·        Legal Services for the Elderly

·        Maine Equal Justice Partners

·        Disability Rights Center

·        Immigration Legal Advocacy Project

·        Maine State Bar Association

·        Department of Health and Human Services

·        Department of Labor

·        State Law Libraries

·        Area Agencies on Aging

·        Maine Center for Women, Work, and Community Resources

·        CASA / Guardians ad Litem

 III.             Training and Educating Court Personnel on Aspects of the System that Create Bias and                 Inequity 

a.       Issue: Court personnel should receive training on aspects of the legal system that create bias and inequity. Some examples include, but are not limited to, language barriers, deafness, blindness, literacy issues, physical disability, mental or developmental disability, racial bias, income inequities, discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, and immigration status. 

b.      Short Term Strategies: 

·        Identify committees that already exist in the court system to address these issues.

·        Identify what training is currently being offered to court personnel.

·        Identify aspects of the court system that create bias and inequity that are not being addressed through the work of preexisting committees.

·        Identify the people / organizations that can best fill in the gaps in the current training.

                 c.       Medium Term Strategies: 

·        Set time frames and training dates.

·        Create training curriculum. 

d.      Long Term Strategies: 

·        Expand the proposed training for court personnel to attorneys.

·        Provide trainings (particularly on the ADA and the 1964 Civil Rights Act) in the form of a Continuing Legal Education course through the Maine State Bar Association.

·        Improve signage in the courthouses for readability and accessability.

·        Attempt to survey client pool to see if they are experiencing a reduction in bias and barriers. (As a measurement tool, JAG cannot rely on those who need the training to reduce their own bias.) 

e.       Strategies for Gauging Success: Annual surveys of court personnel identifying which areas of those identified by JAG they have had trainings on. 

f.        Primary Responsible Party: Administrative Office of the Court 

g.       Concerns: 

·        There are significant costs associated with this recommendation. (Jeff Henthorn mentioned that a ½ day schedule typically costs approximately $10,000 to execute.)

·        There is also the opportunity cost of the Court being shut down for a day.

·        There may be ways around the time and money costs, such as delivering trainings through video and working pieces of the JAG curriculum into other trainings. 

h.       Participating Parties: 

·        Justice Action Group

·        Funders

·        Attorneys

·        Attorney General’s Office

·        Court Personnel

·        Clerk’s Conference

·        Judges / Justices

·        Mediators

·        Family Law Magistrates

·        Administrative Hearing Officers

·        Clerks

·        Secretaries

·        Interpreter Resources

·        Maine Center on Deafness

·        Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence

·        NAACP

·        Maine Speak Out Project

·        Native American Representation

·        Pine Tree Legal Assistance

·        Legal Services for the Elderly

·        Maine Equal Justice Partners

·        Disability Rights Center

·        Immigration Legal Advocacy Project

·        Maine State Bar Association

·        Department of Health and Human Services

·        Department of Labor

·        Area Agencies on Aging

·        Community Legal Resources

·        Maine Center for Women, Work, and Community Resources 

IV.              Creating and Delivering Substantive and Procedural Trainings for Pro Se Litigants; and

V.                 Creating a Set of Courses that Could be Taken on a Voluntary Basis in Conjunction With Certain Court Actions 

Note: the “outreach” efforts are completely different and separate from the proposed classes. The outreach efforts are focused on educating people about their substantive and procedural legal rights, which would include an explanation of due process rights, and how to exercise those rights if they are denied. This outreach would not be related to a court or litigation issue, it would be purely for educational purposes. 

The classes are different, and would not be available until a pro se litigant had either filed or was about to file a complaint.  

a.       Issue: The legal system will be more “friendly” to pro se litigants if there are trainings offered that are specific to their substantive and procedural rights. There has also been some discussion of recommending that Maine adopt a set of mandatory or voluntary classes offered to pro se litigants before court appearances in their matter. 

b.      Short Term Strategies: 

·        To implement this strategy, there must be a full-time employee devoted to planning and executing the trainings. This may be an employee of JAG, MSBA, or the Administrative Office of the Court.

·        It should be clear that any “outreach” done would be separate and distinct from the proposed set of classes.

·        This employee would identify the substantive and procedural areas where trainings would be most useful and helpful.

·        It may be helpful to have a committee with those providing direct services to low income clients which includes low income litigants who received services.

·        The responsibility of this employee would be to solicit outreach from private attorneys and legal service providers to fulfill the training schedule.

·        It is also important to identify the most effective places to hold the trainings. Some trainings should be offered at places where pro se litigants are likely to be anyway (DHHS, Women’s Shelters, Homeless Shelters, CAP Offices). This is important because several barriers stand in the way of  pro se litigants accessing services even after they are aware of the existence of those services. These barriers include child care, transportation, and the cost of time lost at work).

·        Attention must be paid to spreading the responsibility among willing private attorneys and legal service providers. 

c.       Long Term Strategies: 

·        Ensure funding for a position to organize this training series.

·        Create a consistent cyclical schedule of trainings.

·        Create a database of volunteer presenters. 

d.      Legislation:  

·        Legislation would be required if training for pro se litigants became mandatory before starting certain actions. This sub-committee does not recommend mandatory courses for the State of Maine for the reasons listed below in the section labeled “Concerns.” 

e.       Primary Responsible Party: Employee devoted to scheduling trainings and recruiting volunteer presenters. 

f.  Participating Parties: 

·        Justice Action Group

·        Funders

·        Attorneys

·        Court Personnel

·        Judges / Justices

·        Mediators

·        Family Law Magistrates

·        Administrative Hearing Officers

·        Clerks

·        Secretaries

·        Interpreter Resources

·        Maine Center on Deafness

·        Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence

·        NAACP

·        Maine Speak Out Project

·        Native American Representation

·        Pine Tree Legal Assistance

·        Legal Services for the Elderly

·        Maine Equal Justice Partners

·        Disability Rights Center

·        Immigration Legal Advocacy Project

·        Maine State Bar Association

·        Department of Health and Human Services

·        Department of Labor

·        Area Agencies on Aging

·        Community Legal Resources

·        Maine Center for Women, Work, and Community Resources

·        Public Libraries

·        Cleaves Law Library

·        State Law Library

·        University Libraries

·        County Law Libraries

·        Shelters

·        CAP Agencies

·        Faith-Based Organizations

·        Social Security Administration

·        Unemployment Offices

·        Kids First Centers 

                g.     Concerns: 

·        It will be important to avoid the appearance of impropriety in executing the trainings. For example, a DHHS employee should not be educating litigants on their appeal rights in cases that DHHS decides.

·        With any cases involving domestic violence or exploitation, creating a mandatory set of classes provides an extra barrier for already reticent litigants.

·        If the litigant is pro se, chances are that they cannot afford to pay for a class. It will be important to devise a system that makes this concept as cost effective as possible.

·        The Court needs to be sensitive to domestic violence issues.

·        Programs like high-conflict parenting classes are mandated by judges. 

VI.              Making the System More Consumer Friendly 

a.       Issue: How to make the system more consumer friendly? 

b.      Long Term Strategies: 

·        Look into bringing basic training on the court system to high schools and adult education curriculums.

·        What are practical ways to educate the population about the court system before they need to use it?

·        Investigate models that could be adopted in the classroom setting.

·        Lightening up the Rules of Evidence for pro se litigants. 

c.       Primary Responsible Party: Contact to educators by JAG employee, with suggestions for teachers and possible curricula. Responsibility then passes to the educators.

d.      Concerns: 

·        Can clients use self-help materials?

·        Do they want to use self-help materials?

·        How can these materials be made accessible?

·        How do you determine who receives the help? 

e.        Participating Parties: 

·        Justice Action Group

·        Funders

·        Attorneys

·        Court Personnel

·        Judges / Justices

·        Mediators

·        Family Law Magistrates

·        Administrative Hearing Officers

·        Clerks

·        Secretaries

·        Interpreter Resources

·        Maine Center on Deafness

·        Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence

·        NAACP

·        Maine Speak Out Project

·        Native American Representation

·        Pine Tree Legal Assistance

·        Legal Services for the Elderly

·        Maine Equal Justice Partners

·        Disability Rights Center

·        Immigration Legal Advocacy Project

·        Maine State Bar Association

·        Department of Health and Human Services

·        Department of Labor

·        Area Agencies on Aging

·        Community Legal Resources

·        Maine Center for Women, Work, and Community Resources

·        Public Libraries

·        Cleaves Law Library

·        State Law Library

·        University Libraries

·        County Law Libraries

·        Social Security Administration

·        Unemployment Offices

·        Maine Educators Association

·        Umbrella Organization for Adult Education

·        Organizational Law School Group in Substantive Rights