Although the ATJ Technology Principles were designed around the needs and goals of the justice system, they have application in all situations where technology is used to empower people. The FCC recently released a proposed rule which included, among other things, the use of federal funds to promote digital literacy training for low-income Americans. Such training would enhance the availability of broadband Internet services by teaching individuals about the benefits of such services, and how to effectively use the resources that the Internet can provide.
The Washington State ATJ Board, through our own activities and in partnership with others, have been involved in a number of projects that seek to enhance the public’s ability to use and benefit from broadband Internet access. That being the case, we were very pleased to submit comments in support of the FCC’s proposal. Because the FCC’s proposed funding program touches upon the fundamental issues of equal and universal access that underlie the Technology Principles, we also set forth three basic guidelines, derived from the Principles, that we believe should inform the distribution and use of funds. In short, funds should be used in a manner that:
- Enhances access to broadband services;
- Maximizes public awareness and use; and
- Promotes the creation of, and adherence to, best practices guidelines.
In the modern world, universal access to broadband Internet service is more or less a prerequisite of equal access to justice. In seeking the latter, we must support and encourage the former. The ATJ Technology Principles represent a specific application, to the justice system, of general principles that inform the effective, efficient, and egalitarian proliferation of technological advances throughout society. We are excited to see the FCC working towards universal access to broadband for all Americans, which we believe will increase inclusiveness and fairness in society, and help bring about a higher quality of life for all.
Read More
Recently, I was giving the task of looking into the purpose behind the word choice of ‘dissolution’ in the Dissolution Act of 1973. For certain plain language forms, the committee wanted to know if they could use the word ‘divorce’ instead of ‘dissolution,’ as it would be more clear and understandable to the average reader. This was a frustrating task at first, as there was no clear reason given for why they decided in 1973 to use the word ‘dissolution.’ I finally tracked down the Bill file and was able to find one sentence about why the legislature thought the word dissolution would be more appropriate. The Bill file stated that “divorce, because of its connotations, is named ‘marriage dissolution’ in the act.” Essentially this was the bill that introduced no-fault divorce, and at that time there were still negative associations made with the word ‘divorce.’ To eliminate some of this animosity, the legislature decided to use the word dissolution. The problem that arises with this decision, however, is that some people do not equate dissolution with divorce. The word ‘divorce’ would be more clear and better understood by a larger percentage of the population.
I believe this will be a common problem that arises for plain language form writers. Legal writing is focused on nuance, connotation and cultural context, which may often be at odds with the notion of clear and concise writing. Plain language forms are created to help as much of the public as possible understand the requirements for certain legal actions, thereby increasing the amount of people that can access our justice system. It may be the case that the words the legislature chooses to write in bills and statutes are not the appropriate words to use on certain forms. This is not going to “dumb down” the law, as the law will remain intact. What it will do is allow the public to understand what is asked of them, and help gather facts on forms the public actually understands.
Read More
We are happy to announce that Disability Rights Washington has joined as a partner of JusticeNet. Technology has proven itself to be a powerful tool for the empowerment of the disabled in all aspects of society, and we are pleased to have DRW’s support in the effort to apply technology to enhance access to justice for all persons, regardless of whatever individual obstacles may exist.
The complete list of Washington State JusticeNet partners is available here.
Read More
To properly implement the ATJ Tech Principles, they must be part and parcel of all the interactions between the justice system and technology providers. Whether these interactions occur internally, as between government agencies, or externally with third-party providers, the Principles should be a fundamental element of the agreements created. To that end, we have published a model contract clause, available on the Implementation section of this site, which would help embed the Principles into the very foundations of a technologically augmented justice system.
The model clause states the overarching goals of the Tech Principles, and requires that contractors actively consider them when creating their technology plans. The clause ensures a continuing engagement with the Principles by also requiring biennial updates; as technology evolves, it is important that all parties’ understanding and application of the Principles evolves as well.
This model clause reflects an understanding that the concerns behind the Principles must inform every stage of the development of technology for the justice system. It is our hope that such clauses, in concert with other implementation initiatives, will help turn the Principles into a sine qua non of all justice-related technologies.
Read More
Richard Zorza wrote yesterday about LSC seeking comment on a proposed Program Letter addressing financial eligibility screening guidelines. The proposed letter notes the increase in use of online intake systems, and would require human oversight and review of applicants’ information prior to any determination of financial eligibility.
Mr. Zorza notes that it “[i]t is great to see LSC taking this on,” and also points out that the language appears to prohibit the adoption of any automated approaches to financial eligibility review.
As LSC’s proposed letter recognizes, online intake can increase legal services providers’ efficiency in identifying and serving those in need, and in so doing, increase access to justice in a significant way. Please take a look at LSC’s Matters for Comment page, which includes a link to the Notice for Comments in the Federal Register. As online tools and automation continue to grow into powerful tools for the legal aid community, it becomes increasingly important to discuss how they interact with restrictions on LSC recipients.
Read More
The Legal Aid Society of Orange County (LASOC), based in Southeast Los Angeles County, has announced the creation of a for-profit entity to distribute and support its legal self-help software. The new company, Legal Genie, Inc., will offer paid access to the Legal Genie application, a Web-based service that allows users to fill out legal documents such as court forms or pleadings by answering a series of simple questions.
The new venture targets those people who do not qualify for free legal representation, but cannot afford traditional full-service representation. The Legal Genie website can provide assistance for a wide range of legal matters, and includes the option to consult with private-sector attorneys.
Access to justice is not just a public policy issue; it can also be a private sector opportunity. The existing paradigm of full service for the wealthy and free service for the poor leaves the middle class in something of a bind – they are “priced out of legal representation,” creating an underserved market. By embracing approaches such as unbundling and Web-based services, companies like Legal Genie illustrate how improving access to the legal system can be a foundation for a profitable business.
Read More
This is the new home of the Washington State Access to Justice Principles. The site is currently undergoing changes and will be complete in the coming weeks. To help with the site redesign please email me at: Brian < at > BrianRowe.org .
Best,
Brian Rowe
Access to Justice Board’s Technology Committee Chair
Read More
Recent Comments