When court policies, processes, and technologies are straightforward and easy to follow and use, litigants engage more effectively with the civil legal system. Courts should identify and respond to persistent sticking points for users and ensure that processes work for all court users. Streamlining procedures and systems can improve litigant participation, reduce confusion, and support frictionless engagement between courts and their users, particularly litigants without counsel.
Courts can simplify their processes by implementing four 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 how they are simplifying court processes, identify opportunities to improve, and decide—with input from relevant stakeholders—which of those opportunities to pursue and how.
These groups can contribute important perspectives and insights about streamlining court processes.
Court users can share their experiences and challenges and help test forms, websites, and relevant tools (e.g., remote conferencing platforms) for usability, findability, and accessibility.
Leadership/administrative officers can champion initiatives to streamline processes, adopt new technologies, pass rule changes, and monitor the court holistically to see how processes are implemented across jurisdictions and provide guidance to reduce variation.
Judges can take an active role in managing cases and partner with court officers, assistants, and clerks to ensure that cases are smoothly processed.
Clerks can support the implementation of simplified processes, ensure that new systems work as intended; provide feedback on what additional training, support, and documentation they need to successfully adopt reforms; and identify common problems that court users face.
Access to justice staff can update forms to improve the content and usability, meet with local leaders to understand barriers to case participation, and champion solutions, update how courts process cases, and work with relevant personnel to identify sticking points for court users.
IT staff can develop and implement technology to improve and enable court users’ participation in their cases.
Research staff can measure the effectiveness of process reforms.
Self-help staff can identify points where court users frequently get stuck and changes that would reduce confusion and help users navigate new platforms or processes.
Community partners (e.g., schools, food banks, housing advocacy organizations) can give feedback about civil legal needs in their communities, gaps in access to resources, and ways to improve community engagement with the courts.
Legal stakeholders (e.g., civil legal aid, the private bar) can lead process mapping exercises to identify the choices a court user must make during the course of a case, where users encounter barriers to participation, and what the court can do to address issues.
External researchers (e.g., user design experts, accessibility experts) can provide guidance on how to simplify processes and communicate the changes to court users, conduct accessibility audits, translate resources, conduct user testing, and help courts build their internal capacity.
The following set of key metrics can enable courts to assess their progress toward addressing procedural barriers and simplifying processes, undertake necessary reforms, and conduct cross-jurisdictional comparisons. (See Tables 1-4.)
For each metric, determine whether the answer to the initial question is yes or no using the suggested measure. If the answer to the metric question is no, 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 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 | State examples |
|---|---|---|
|
Do the processes court users must follow to resolve their legal issues involve the minimum possible steps? How to measure it: |
Internal Experts
External Experts
|
|
|
Are unrepresented court users successfully navigating their cases? How to measure it:
|
Internal Experts
External Experts
Court Users
|
|
|
Is the amount of time court users spend waiting in the courtroom or online proportionate to the time required to complete the activity they are waiting for?
|
Who's involved: Internal Experts
|
|
|
Do court processes help users avoid multiple interactions with the court in which no decision is made in the case?
|
Who’s involved: Internal Experts
External Experts
|
|
Sources: National Center for State Courts, “Process Simplification: A State Court Toolkit” (2022); National Center for State Courts and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, “Civil Justice Initiative: Performance Measures for Civil Justice” (2017); Supreme Court of Arizona, “Order: Amending the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure and Related Provisions No. R-17-0010” (2017); National Center for State Courts, “Texas: Impact of the Expedited Actions Rules on the Texas County Courts at Law” (2016); Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, “Working Smarter Not Harder: How Excellent Judges Manage Cases” (2014); Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, “18 Ways Courts Should Use Technology to Better Serve Their Customers” (2018); Judicial Council of California, “2023 California Rules of Court” (2013); State Court Administrative Office Lessons Learned Committee, “Michigan Trial Courts: Lessons Learned From the Pandemic of 2020-2021” (2021); Judicial Council of California, “Declaration for Default or Uncontested Dissolution or Legal Separation Fl-170” (2020); National Center for State Courts, “Pandemic Era Procedural Improvements That Courts Should Adopt Permanently” (2022)
Table 2
Metrics, suggested steps, and state examples and resources
| Metric | If not, suggested next steps | State examples |
|---|---|---|
|
Does the court have clear and consistent rules about which business users can conduct remotely and for which case types (e.g., hearings and court programs and services such as mediation and self-help)?
|
Who's involved: Internal Experts
External Experts
|
|
|
Can nonlawyers successfully use electronic court processes (e.g., e-filing, e-notarization, uploading evidence, e-payments)?
|
Who's involved: Internal Experts
External Experts
Court Users
|
|
Sources: National Center for State Courts, “Open Data Principles to Promote Court Technology Post-Pandemic: Key Data Elements to Collect & Report” (2020); National Center for State Courts, “Remote Proceeding Toolkit” (2022); Indiana Office of Judicial Administration, “Spotlight: Self-Service Kiosks Coming to Every County” (Feb. 16, 2023); National Center for State Courts, “Self-Represented E-filing: Surveying the Accessible Implementations” (2022); Judicial Innovation Fellowship, “Kansas Office of Judicial Administration—Judicial Innovation Fellowship Statement of Work” (2023); D. Karis and J. Huitema, “The Massachusetts Trial Court in 2023 and Beyond: Improving Online Capabilities and Increasing Access to Justice” (2023); Pandemic Rapid Response Team, “Workable Considerations When Drafting or Updating Remote-Hearing Protocols ” (2021)
Table 3
Metrics, suggested steps, and state examples and resources
| Metric | If not, suggested next steps | State examples |
|---|---|---|
|
Are fee waivers automatic?
|
Who's involved: Internal Experts
External Experts
|
|
|
Is expungement and sealing of cases automatic?
|
Who's involved: Internal Experts
External Experts
|
|
|
Are disability and translation accommodations automatically flagged and provided?
|
Who's involved: Internal Experts
External Experts
|
|
Sources: Supreme Court of Illinois, “Illinois Courts Response to COVID-19 Emergency Reduction of Unnecessary in-Person Court Appearances M.R. 30370” (2020); Maryland Courts, “Filing Fee Waivers”; Judicial Branch of California, “Request to Waive Court Fees (Fw-001)” (2023); District of Columbia, “42–3505.09. Sealing of Eviction Court Records” (2022); N. Hussein, T. Bourret, and S. Gallagher, “Eviction Sealing and Expungement Toolkit” (2023); Michigan State Police, “Michigan Clean Slate”; Maryland Courts, “Need a Court Interpreter? Part 1: How to Request an Interpreter”; Utah State Courts, “Request a Court Interpreter”; M. Starks, (Clerk, Utah State Courts), (June 7, 2023); Judicial Branch of California, “Request for Interpreter (Civil) (Int-300)” (2016); Judicial Branch of California, “Disability Accommodation Request (MC-410)” (2021)
Table 4
Metrics, suggested steps, and state examples and resources
| Metric | If not, suggested next steps | State examples |
|---|---|---|
|
Can court personnel easily substantiate the validity of a case (e.g., is the plaintiff attempting to collect a debt after the statute of limitations has expired)?
How to measure it:
Survey clerks and judges. |
Who's involved: Internal Experts
External Experts
|
|
|
Can clerks and judges easily substantiate whether defendants are successfully notified of a case against them?
|
Who's involved: Internal Experts
External Experts
|
|
Sources: Massachusetts, “R. Civ. P. 8.1” (2018); North Carolina, “§ 58-70-115. Unfair Practices”; State of Wisconsin Circuit Court—La Crosse County, “Sufficiency of Consumer Credit Complaint Checklist”; National Center for State Courts, “Service Modernization Brief” (2022); National Center for State Courts, “Tiny Chat 113: Sparring With Spulak—Service of Process Modernization” (Jan. 5, 2023); New York City, “Admin. Code §§ 20-410” (2011); Trial Court of Massachusetts, “Affidavit of Address Verification”
Like many states, Arizona courts implemented online court processes during the COVID-19 pandemic to continue conducting business while courthouses were closed. Although some states saw rollbacks of court technology as the pandemic waned, Arizona has continued to enhance and refine its use of remote hearings and other tools, such as an online evidence system and electronic filing, to better serve court users.2
In June 2021, Arizona’s “Plan B” work group, which the state Supreme Court created in March 2020 to help courts navigate the pandemic, recommended that courts expand their use of remote and electronic document technologies.3 And then in February 2022, the work group released a formal report detailing its recommendations, such as which hearing types should be held remotely versus in person. A month later, the Arizona Judicial Council adopted the recommendations as presumptive standards for all courts statewide.
As part of these efforts to refine and improve the use of remote hearings, Arizona courts are collecting data on the reach and effectiveness of virtual proceedings, including the number of online hearings—the court system held more than 108,000 hours of Zoom hearings in 2022—case clearance rates, appearance rates, and other metrics. The Arizona Supreme Court is also evaluating the implementation and efficacy of the standards for when the court would automatically schedule a remote hearing through a survey of judges, state bar members, and court administrative staff.
“Our goal is to have a citizen-centered court system. Historically we’ve been a judge-centered system,” says David Byers, director of the Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts. “By using data to understand what’s working, we’re making it easier for court users to effectively participate in our courts.”
Additionally, Arizona is collaborating with other states to share best practices and lessons learned on topics including improved methods for hybrid hearings in which some parties are remote and others are in the courtroom; digitization of evidence; and strengthening the courts’ customer focus, which includes training and education to help court staff understand and account for the “digital divide” in the state.