Courts that collaborate with community organizations to make legal assistance and other support mechanisms available and accessible, especially for litigants without attorneys, can help people resolve legal issues before they become court cases, prioritize court resources for more contentious and complex cases, and reduce costs for all involved. And when people receive legal assistance before coming to court, they are better prepared and empowered to participate in their cases, and the time they spend engaging with the court is shorter and more productive.
Courts seeking to improve access to legal resources through collaboration with community partners can begin by implementing two key practices:
After extensive research, The Pew Charitable Trusts has developed a framework outlining how and why courts should modernize.1 These steps arise from that work and can help programmatic and operational court staff, along with court leadership, assess state courts’ current level of collaboration with community organizations; identify ways to improve those partnerships to expand court users’ access to needed resources; and decide—with input from relevant stakeholders—which of those opportunities to pursue and how.
These groups can contribute important perspectives and insights about how to collaborate with community partners to support greater access to resources.
Court users can provide feedback about which court-provided resources they found most helpful and most challenging when looking for help.
Leadership/administrative officers can champion and scale pilot programs that increase access to legal resources, push for regulatory reforms to enable nontraditional organizations and businesses to provide legal assistance, and support the use of mediators when appropriate.
Clerks can share information about available resources with court users who need help and ensure that data on the type and breadth of legal assistance that users receive is accurately coded in the case management system in line with data standards.
Access to justice staff can identify gaps in legal assistance resources and champion solutions, such as partnering with community organizations to provide assistance and improving forms to include information about available assistance.
Self-help staff can compile resources for court users (e.g., FAQs about court services and legal information fact sheets), develop bench cards for judges with information about available social services, and partner with external organizations to refer court users.
Research staff can compare how jurisdictions with and without external partnerships handle cases and share this information with court leaders and access to justice staff to bring successful collaboration models to scale.
Community partners can conduct community outreach to identify legal issues and potential solutions and connect people with court resources, social services, and financial assistance.
Legal stakeholders (e.g., civil legal aid, bar foundation, law firms) can partner with the court to offer brief legal assistance (e.g., a “lawyer-for-a-day” booth outside a courtroom where litigants can ask questions or get help negotiating a settlement), provide input about how to connect court users with legal resources, develop guidance on reforms to expand the availability of legal assistance (e.g., reviewing regulations on unauthorized practice of law), and support diversion and other alternative dispute resolution efforts.
The following set of key metrics can enable courts to assess their progress toward collaborating with community organizations to improve access to resources. (See Tables 1 and 2.)
For each metric, determine whether the answer to the initial question is yes or no using the suggested measure. When the answer is no, the court should pursue the suggested next steps in collaboration with staff and stakeholders. The suggested steps are not prescriptive; instead, they provide ideas and options for getting started. The included state examples can help courts determine what actions are feasible given available resources.
Table 1
Metrics, suggested steps, and state examples and resources
| Metric | If not, suggested next steps | Examples and resources |
|---|---|---|
|
Do litigants receive any type of legal help during their cases?
How to measure it: Analyze court data related to legal representation, such as whether an attorney is on record, whether the lawyer was present at a hearing but did not provide full representation, or whether the defendant had limited help (e.g., preparing a document).
|
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
External Experts:
|
|
|
Do courts regularly refer users to social services, when appropriate, to resolve their issues?
How to measure it: Analyze court data or track referrals from self-help staff, courtroom navigators, and judges.
|
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
External Experts:
|
|
|
Sources: Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, “In the Matter of Approval of Rules to Implement Paralegal Licensing in Oregon” (2022); Tara Hughes and Joyce Reichard, “How States Are Using Limited Licensed Legal Paraprofessionals to Address the Access to Justice Gap” (Sept. 2, 2022); National Center for State Courts, “Building Eviction Diversion Referral Partnerships”; National Center for State Courts, “Appendix D: Pilot Projects, Rule Changes, and Other Innovations in State Courts Around the Country” (2016); M. Begay, “54-A District Court Receives Funding for Program to Reduce Evictions in Lansing” (July 20, 2022); “Eviction Diversion Program: Las Vegas Justice Court” (2023); National Center for State Courts, “Eviction Diversion Best Practices—Timing Considerations” |
Table 2
Metrics, suggested steps, and examples and resources
| Metric | If not, suggested next steps | Examples and resources |
|---|---|---|
|
Are civil legal issues being resolved outside the courtroom?
How to measure it: Review data on early resolution programs, online dispute resolution or similar alternatives, and the proportion of cases where the parties reach an agreement without judicial involvement.
|
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
External Experts:
|
|
|
Are judges able to spend their time on the cases that most require their expertise, such as those involving disputes of the law or facts in evidence?
How to measure it: Analyze court docket data on judicial workloads and timelines.
|
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
Court users |
|
|
Sources: National Center for State Courts, “Eviction Diversion Initiative Grant Program”; National Center for State Courts, “Eviction Diversion Best Practices—Timing Considerations”; National Center for State Courts, “Tiny Chat 51: Evictions (What’s Next?)” (May 10, 2021); National Center for State Courts, “Tiny Chat: Evictions” (June 19, 2020); the White House, “White House Summit on Building Lasting Eviction Prevention Reform” (Aug. 2, 2022); Judicial Branch of Arizona—Maricopa County, “Early Resolution Conference: Frequently Asked Questions”; National Center for State Courts and Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, “Civil Justice Initiative: Evaluation of the Civil Justice Initiative Pilot Project (CJIPP)” (2019); Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, “Redefining Case Management” (2018); National Center for State Courts, “Civil Justice Initiative: A Guide to Building Civil Case Management Teams” (2017) |
In November 2021, Cook County, Illinois, launched the Cook County Legal Aid for Housing and Debt Early Resolution Program (ERP)—a partnership of the Chicago Bar Foundation, the Chicago Bar Association, the city of Chicago, Cook County, and a network of service providers and community organizations.2 The program, which the county started shortly after it began conducting virtual hearings, helps court users access legal and rental assistance, mediation, and community support resources to resolve eviction and consumer debt cases without traditional litigation. By assisting litigants in solving their issues, ERP also enables judges to focus on more complex cases.3
“Equal access to justice requires commitment and can be advanced in many ways,” said Judge Barbara Flores, one of two judges presiding over the ERP courtroom in Chicago. “Programs like ERP help self-represented litigants more capably navigate through, and competently participate in, the judicial process.”4
Nearly half of eviction and debt collection cases in Cook County are filed at just five courthouses in suburban communities outside Chicago. The ERP helps to ensure consistency in how cases are managed throughout the county, makes it easier for litigants in these areas to access legal services—which had previously been concentrated in downtown Chicago—and eliminates the problem of cases proceeding to judgment before the parties can connect with legal aid or apply for rental assistance. Defendants receive information about ERP in English, Spanish, and Polish at the time of service and can connect with program staff by calling a dedicated hotline or by connecting with case managers who are present during their initial virtual court hearings. Additionally, during those first hearings, judges can direct unrepresented litigants to one of 25 virtual breakout rooms to meet with representatives from legal aid, mediation, and rental assistance programs. Program resources are available to self-represented landlords and tenants, and individuals who participate receive a 28-day continuance to pursue a solution outside court before trial. The continuance provision also helps save court time, allowing judges to focus more on disputes of fact or law.
Since ERP’s launch, judges have referred about 34,000 cases for case management and program services. The program has enabled tens of thousands of litigants to access resources or reach resolutions without the need to travel to several physical offices seeking help. The Chicago Bar Foundation also partnered with Stout Risius Ross, an investment and evaluation firm, to evaluate the program and found that 76% of litigants who received legal services and settlement negotiations through ERP felt confident that they would achieve their goals, such as tenants receiving rental assistance or staying in their homes, or landlords recovering possession of their rental units.5