How to Create User-Friendly Legal Information and Resources
Steps for making civil courts more effective
Overview
Clear, accessible legal information helps court users without lawyers understand what they need to do, where they need to go, and how to engage with the court and with their case. To make courts easier to navigate, this information should be widely available and easy to find via basic web searches and on official documents (e.g., a summons includes a QR code that leads to online legal information).
Courts can make their information and resources more user-friendly by implementing two key practices:
- Make court and legal information discoverable online, in person, and by phone.
- Ensure that court forms include, in easy-to-understand formats and plain language, the information users need to make educated decisions about their cases.
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 the quality and breadth of information and resources they provide to court users; identify opportunities to improve; and decide—with input from relevant stakeholders—which of those opportunities to pursue and how.
Step 1: Bring together relevant court staff and external stakeholders
These groups can contribute important perspectives and insights about how to create and disseminate user-friendly court information and resources.
- Court users can test forms, websites, and tools (e.g., remote conferencing platforms) to ensure that these resources are easy to find, use, and understand.
- Leadership/administrative officers can champion internal initiatives, establish partnerships with civil legal aid providers and pro bono organizations, and prioritize building or improving the court’s online resources. Their buy-in is critical to the success of these efforts.
- Judges can review redesigned forms and develop referral protocols to connect court users with resources (e.g., rental assistance, self-help, legal aid).
- Clerks can provide feedback about barriers that court users encounter and ensure that the same high-quality information is consistently provided across jurisdictions by publicly posting relevant resources (e.g., flyers).
- Access to justice staff can identify gaps in available resources and champion solutions that support court users in finding and accessing information about their cases.
- Self-help staff can identify court users’ problem areas, ways that the court can provide more and clearer information, and additional resources to support users without attorneys; recommend strategies to reduce user confusion; and partner with other court personnel to improve the robustness and usability of court information and services.
- Research staff can measure how well reforms designed to better connect court users with information and resources are working and conduct user testing.
- Website administrators can monitor site analytics to understand user demand for information on various topics (e.g., which webpage has the highest traffic), lead user testing efforts, and maintain content quality.
- Forms developers can update materials to improve content and usability.
- Community partners (e.g., schools, food banks, housing advocacy organizations) can give feedback about legal needs and information gaps in their communities.
- External researchers can test court websites for search optimization (e.g., checking if court resources are among the top results in a search for “debt collection answer form”), conduct accessibility audits, translate resources into plain language, and help courts build their internal capacity to conduct research.
- Legal stakeholders (e.g., civil legal aid, pro bono lawyers, law firms) can offer insight into the barriers that selfrepresented court users face and provide support services for users without attorneys (e.g., setting up a lawyer-for-aday program or running domestic violence legal services).
Step 2: Assess current practices and set next steps
The following set of key metrics can enable courts to assess their progress toward improving the quality and breadth of court and partner 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
Court Users Should Be Able to Easily Find Legal Information
Metrics, suggested steps, and state examples and resources
| Metric | If not, suggested next steps | Examples and resources |
|---|---|---|
|
Can court users find accurate information about which court and courtroom to go to and how to get there? How to measure it: Use “secret shopper” assessments (in which a professional tester poses as a consumer) to evaluate the usability of the information available on the court website and over the phone. |
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
External Experts:
|
In 2022, The Turnout, a consulting firm specializing in policy, research, and technology, in partnership with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and Stanford University’s Legal Design Lab, developed a taxonomy to help court websites—particularly their information on location, hours, and other basics—be more discoverable by online search engines. The Illinois and California courts have adopted the taxonomy. |
|
Can court users find information about their rights as litigants (e.g., request language interpreters, access fee waivers, and request disability-related accommodations)? How to measure it: Conduct secret shopper assessments of information provided over the phone, and user test the website (e.g., ask court users to navigate various scenarios, such as requesting an interpreter). |
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
Court users |
|
|
Are court users accessing the court website and finding the information they need to navigate their legal issue? How to measure it: Review site analytics, such as the number of site visits, repeat visitors, bounce rates, and time spent on relevant pages. |
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
External Experts
External Experts:
|
|
|
Do court users make informed choices about how to engage in a case? How to measure it: Survey litigants, by mail or text, about why they did or did not participate in a lawsuit. (Use contact information pulled from summonses or other relevant court documents.) |
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
External Experts
Court users |
|
|
Sources: The Court Data Standardization Project, “Court Data Standard Project Documentation”; Judicial Branch of California, “Find Your Court”; Judicial Branch of California, “Request for Interpreter (Civil) (INT-300)” (2016); Judicial Branch of California, “Disability Accommodation Request (MC-410)” (2021); Illinois Courts, “Find Your Court”; North Carolina Judicial Branch, “Request for Disability Accommodation”; Stanford Legal Design Lab, “Improve Your Discovery & Rank”; Stanford Legal Design Lab, “Improve Your Tech Performance”; Stanford Legal Design Lab: A Better Legal Internet, “Markup Your Site With Legal Schema”; National Center for State Courts, “Eviction Diversion Outreach Strategies”; Judicial Branch of California, “Eviction Cases in California”; Ohio Legal Help, “Eviction in Ohio”; LaGratta Consulting, “Court Voices Project: Using Court User Feedback to Guide Courts’ Pandemic Responses” (2022); Optimal Workshop, “Get Fast, Actionable Insights”; New Jersey Courts, “New Jersey Judiciary Warns Litigants Against Notarios Públicos Who Are Not Authorized to Practice Law,” (Oct. 14, 2015); Stanford Legal Design Lab: Eviction Innovation, “Eviction Summons Redesign in Cincinnati, OH,” (Jan. 28, 2020); C. Chiappetta, “New California Civil Court Web Portal: A Model for Other States?” (2022); S. Nazem, (May 18, 2023); S. Nazem, (principal court management consultant, National Center for State Courts), (June 6, 2023); Victor Quintanilla, Kurt Hugenberg, Ryan Hutchings, and Nedem Yel, “Accessing Justice with Zoom: Experiences and Outcomes in Online Civil Courts” (2023) |
Table 2
Court Users Should Be Able to Easily Understand Self-Help Materials and Complete Forms
Metrics, suggested steps, and state examples and resources
| Metric | If not, suggested next steps | State examples |
|---|---|---|
|
Does the court’s website or jurisdiction’s legal assistance portal include plain-language legal information for all case types (e.g., the steps in a case, what happens when people do not participate in a case)? How to measure it: Conduct website testing with court users and self-help staff to determine the appropriate level of textual complexity; do not rely solely on reading-level assessments for this because, although useful as a starting point, they do not fully capture how understandable or actionable the information is. |
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
External Experts
Court users |
|
|
Are court forms written in a way that allows court users to find what they need, understand what they find, and use the information without help? How to measure it: Test court forms with court users and self-help staff. |
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
External Experts
Court users |
|
|
Do the court’s website and forms comply with federal and local government digital accessibility and language access requirements? How to measure it: Conduct accessibility testing and review the court website for multilingual content. |
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
External Experts
|
|
|
For high-volume case types in which most defendants represent themselves, do defendants engage in their case? How to measure it: Analyze bulk court data to identify how many defendants filed answers, participated in their hearings, or filed post-judgment motions or forms. |
Who’s involved: Internal Experts:
External Experts
Court users |
|
|
Sources: National Center for State Courts, “Best Practices for Creating Legal Self-Help Materials,” (2023); OpenAdvocate, “WriteClearly”; National Center for Education Statistics, “U.S. State and County Estimates Resources”; C. Chiappetta, “New California Civil Court Web Portal: A Model for Other States?” (2022); National Center for State Courts, “Forms Camp 2022”; National Center for State Courts, “Interactive Plain Language Glossary”; Massachusetts Trial Court Self-Help Materials Task Force, “Readability Guidelines for Printed Self-Help Materials and Forms” (2018); U.S. Web Design System (USWDS), “How to Use USWDS”; A2J Tech, “Accessibility Guide,” (2023); American Bar Association, “Standards for Language Access in Courts” (2012); U.S. Census Bureau, “Detailed Languages Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over: 2009-2013”; New Mexico Courts, “Inicio”; Judicial Branch of California, “Guía De Ayuda De Las Cortes De California”; Illinois Courts, “Approved Statewide Forms - Eviction”; U.S. General Services Administration, “Accessibility for Visual Designers”; Alaska Courts, “Answer & Counterclaim to Complaint to Collect a Debt (CIV-481)” (2016); U.S. Census Bureau, “Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over” (2010-2022), (Sept. 27, 2023); North Carolina Judicial Branch, “Judgment Calculator”; Suffolk University Law School’s Legal Innovation and Technology Lab, “Rate My PDF,” accessed Aug. 8, 2023 |
The work in action: Texas nonprofit tests educational packet for defendants
In an effort to address rising consumer debt claims, which the state judiciary reported accounted for 21% of all civil cases in fiscal year 2022, the Texas Judicial Council in 2020 recommended that the state Office of Court Administration develop an information packet to educate debt defendants about court processes.2 The packet would be sent to defendants shortly after they were notified about a lawsuit and would contain forms and information, written in plain language, to help defendants avoid a default judgment—an automatic judgment for the plaintiff entered when a defendant does not respond to a lawsuit.
In response, a justice-driven nonprofit, Texas Appleseed, created a model packet to test with English- and
Spanish-speaking community members. The Appleseed packet, developed with input from consumer law and access to justice experts, included a letter from the court detailing the lawsuit process and available legal support resources, a sample answer form with a list of common defenses to help litigants respond to the lawsuit, and detailed instructions on filling out and submitting the form. The organization gathered feedback on the packet via interviews with study participants.
In May 2023, Texas Appleseed released a report, “Improving Access to Justice in Consumer Debt Lawsuits,” that included the results of its user testing.3 The organization found that the packet not only helped defendants identify basic elements of the lawsuit and feel more positive about the process but also enabled them to access legal resources.
This improvement was especially felt by Spanish-speaking participants, who reported an increase in ease of understanding court documents and processes. Before reading the packet, 30% said it was easy or very easy to understand court materials and procedures. But after reading the packet, this share jumped to 90%, highlighting the importance of language accessibility. Participants also reported feeling better-equipped to navigate the courts, being more likely to take part in their cases, and having a greater understanding of the basic elements of the lawsuit, such as the correct court to respond to.
The report recommends that the courts move forward with a court-based pilot program to evaluate the impact that receiving the materials has on response rates and default judgment rates in consumer debt collection lawsuits. The end goal is to eventually implement the information packet statewide. The study moved a Texas court, which is now in conversation with Appleseed about possible pilot efforts, one step closer to helping debt defendants better navigate and participate in their cases, improving outcomes for individuals and the courts.4
Endnotes
- The Pew Charitable Trusts, “How to Make Civil Courts More Open, Effective, and Equitable” (2023), https://www.pewtrusts.org/research-and-analysis/reports/2023/09/how-to-make-civil-courts-more-open-effective-and-equitable.
- Texas Judicial Branch Office of Court Administration, “Annual Statistical Report for the Texas Judiciary” (2023), https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1456803/ar-statistical-fy-22-final.pdf; Texas Judicial Council, Civil Justice Committee Recommendations on Bail (2020), https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1449796/resolutions-approved-by-the-texas-judicial-council-september-24-2020_.pdf.
- B. Gordley et al., “Improving Access to Justice in Consumer Debt Lawsuits” (Texas Appleseed, 2023), https://www.texasappleseed.org/sites/default/files/Debt_Collection_Report_2023.pdf.
- A. Baddour and B. Gordley, director and senior policy analyst, Fair Financial Services Project at Texas Appleseed, video conference with Casey Chiappetta, principal associate, and Sarah Godfrey, officer, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Aug. 21, 2023.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Report
Article
