How to Simplify Court Processes to Support User Engagement

Steps for making civil courts more effective

Fact Sheet December 20, 2023 Read time:

Projects: Courts & Communities

Overview

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:

Identify and address the procedural barriers court users face when navigating their cases.
Strategically use technologies to improve court user participation and court workloads.
Ensure that court processes are consistent across jurisdictions and judges.

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.

Step 1: Bring together relevant court staff and external stakeholders

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.

Step 2: Assess current practices and set next steps

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.

Downloads How to Simplify Court Processes to Support User Engagement (PDF)

Table 1

Courts Should Address Procedural Barriers Court Users Face Throughout Their Cases

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: For each case type, use process mapping to document all the steps that court users must take, such as filing documents, notifying other parties about document filings, and providing evidence to the court.	Have court personnel role play as self represented litigants navigating a court case to better understand the experience and potential barriers. Gather feedback and obtain buy-in from the private bar, civil legal aid, and court personnel on potential rule changes to streamline processes. Who's involved? Internal Experts Access to justice Judges Leadership Legal counsel Self-help External Experts Legal stakeholders	The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has a process simplification toolkit that identifies areas where courts can streamline case processes. NCSC and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System’s (IAALS) Performance Measures for Civil Justice outlines metrics and methods courts can use to evaluate the effectiveness of civil justice rules and business practices. The Arizona Supreme Court’s Committee on Civil Justice Reform developed recommendations improving case management, and in 2017, the court adopted rule changes to lower discovery limits for less complex cases and expedite discovery procedures and disclosure disputes. The Texas courts adopted expedited rules to reduce the time and cost of discovery for court users. IAALS and NCSC evaluated the change and found high compliance with the new rules and fewer motions related to discovery disputes, on average.
Are unrepresented court users successfully navigating their cases? How to measure it: Analyze court data to determine whether and at what point cases tend to go off track.	Send text, email, and mail reminders to court users to communicate deadlines and next steps. Embed outreach in clerks’ roles or program the case management system to send automatic notifications to individual court users; this can be time-intensive, so work with case managers or court administrators to assess workloads and capacity. Develop and publish materials to make the process transparent and navigable for court users. Who's involved: Internal Experts Access to justice Clerks Judges Researchers Self-help External Experts Researchers Court Users Court users	IAALS identified five best practices for judges to use when communicating timelines to court users, including convening an initial case management conference, being explicit about how parties should participate in the case and communicate among themselves and with the court, and exploring settlement options early in the process. The Orange County Superior Court programmed its case management system to send automatic text messages reminding litigants in family cases about next steps and then conducted a study of the messages’ effectiveness, which found that users who received texts were more likely to move their case forward and had fewer periods of inactivity. California courts were previously statutorily prohibited from conducting case management for divorce cases. But after San Diego County discovered that many divorce petitioners had not understood that they had to submit additional information to the court and were at risk of having their cases dismissed, the courts were able to secure a change to the law and develop rules for divorce case management timelines and processes.
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? How to measure it: Observe court proceedings to assess how much of the time users spend in the courthouse, in person and virtually, is devoted to engaging with their case versus waiting.	Develop wait time benchmarks for different case steps, such as filing a motion in person or having a hearing. Provide individual hearing appointments, either specific times or windows, instead of setting a single start time for all cases on the docket each day, so users experience shorter waits. Use queuing software or restaurant buzzers to allow users to move around the courthouse while they wait, rather than having to remain in the courtroom gallery. Consider ways to use litigants’ wait time productively, such as reviewing paperwork with a clerk or other court staff member. Who's involved: Internal Experts Access to justice Clerks IT staff Judges Leadership Researchers	NCSC compiled a list of procedural improvements that courts made during the COVID-19 pandemic that they should consider adopting permanently and outlines how to improve docket management via case scheduling, eliminating unnecessary appearances, and leveraging diversion programs. Several jurisdictions adopted staggered hearing times during the pandemic, and Michigan courts have identified this as a best practice that should be required statewide.
Do court processes help users avoid multiple interactions with the court in which no decision is made in the case? How to measure it: Analyze court data to assess the frequency of court users’ attendance at hearings and other engagements throughout their cases.	Examine court processes to identify steps that are unnecessary, do not need to be completed in person, or could be combined. Early in each case, engage with the court users by scheduling a hearing, triage cases to receive the right level of court involvement, or connect the court users with resources, such as an attorney to review paperwork, to ensure that all parties are ready to proceed. Allow administrative motions, such as continuances or date changes, to be handled over email or text. Work with judges to develop guidance to help ensure that nonlawyers can request and receive continuances or scheduling changes as readily as lawyers. Who’s involved: Internal Experts Access to justice Judges Leadership Researchers External Experts Legal stakeholders Researchers	California has a declaration for default that divorce petitioners use to document the steps they have taken, calculate payments, and provide other information that judges use to determine whether a hearing is required before a default judgment can be entered. The declaration reduces the need for petitioners—especially those at risk from domestic violence or whose spouses refuse to engage with their cases—to face their spouse in court.

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:

For each case type, use process mapping to document all the steps that court users must take, such as filing documents, notifying other parties about document filings, and providing evidence to the court.

Have court personnel role play as self represented litigants navigating a court case to better understand the experience and potential barriers.
Gather feedback and obtain buy-in from the private bar, civil legal aid, and court personnel on potential rule changes to streamline processes.

Who's involved?

Internal Experts

Access to justice
Judges
Leadership
Legal counsel
Self-help

External Experts

Legal stakeholders

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has a process simplification toolkit that identifies areas where courts can streamline case processes.
NCSC and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System’s (IAALS) Performance Measures for Civil Justice outlines metrics and methods courts can use to evaluate the effectiveness of civil justice rules and business practices.
The Arizona Supreme Court’s Committee on Civil Justice Reform developed recommendations improving case management, and in 2017, the court adopted rule changes to lower discovery limits for less complex cases and expedite discovery procedures and disclosure disputes.
The Texas courts adopted expedited rules to reduce the time and cost of discovery for court users. IAALS and NCSC evaluated the change and found high compliance with the new rules and fewer motions related to discovery disputes, on average.

Are unrepresented court users successfully navigating their cases?

How to measure it:

Analyze court data to determine whether and at what point cases tend to go off track.

Send text, email, and mail reminders to court users to communicate deadlines and next steps.
Embed outreach in clerks’ roles or program the case management system to send automatic notifications to individual court users; this can be time-intensive, so work with case managers or court administrators to assess workloads and capacity.
Develop and publish materials to make the process transparent and navigable for court users.

Who's involved:

Internal Experts

Access to justice
Clerks
Judges
Researchers
Self-help

External Experts

Researchers

Court Users

Court users

IAALS identified five best practices for judges to use when communicating timelines to court users, including convening an initial case management conference, being explicit about how parties should participate in the case and communicate among themselves and with the court, and exploring settlement options early in the process.
The Orange County Superior Court programmed its case management system to send automatic text messages reminding litigants in family cases about next steps and then conducted a study of the messages’ effectiveness, which found that users who received texts were more likely to move their case forward and had fewer periods of inactivity.
California courts were previously statutorily prohibited from conducting case management for divorce cases. But after San Diego County discovered that many divorce petitioners had not understood that they had to submit additional information to the court and were at risk of having their cases dismissed, the courts were able to secure a change to the law and develop rules for divorce case management timelines and processes.

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?

How to measure it:

Observe court proceedings to assess how much of the time users spend in the courthouse, in person and virtually, is devoted to engaging with their case versus waiting.

Develop wait time benchmarks for different case steps, such as filing a motion in person or having a hearing.
Provide individual hearing appointments, either specific times or windows, instead of setting a single start time for all cases on the docket each day, so users experience shorter waits.
Use queuing software or restaurant buzzers to allow users to move around the courthouse while they wait, rather than having to remain in the courtroom gallery.
Consider ways to use litigants’ wait time productively, such as reviewing paperwork with a clerk or other court staff member.

Who's involved:

Internal Experts

Access to justice
Clerks
IT staff
Judges
Leadership
Researchers

NCSC compiled a list of procedural improvements that courts made during the COVID-19 pandemic that they should consider adopting permanently and outlines how to improve docket management via case scheduling, eliminating unnecessary appearances, and leveraging diversion programs.
Several jurisdictions adopted staggered hearing times during the pandemic, and Michigan courts have identified this as a best practice that should be required statewide.

Do court processes help users avoid multiple interactions with the court in which no decision is made in the case?

How to measure it:

Analyze court data to assess the frequency of court users’ attendance at hearings and other engagements throughout their cases.

Examine court processes to identify steps that are unnecessary, do not need to be completed in person, or could be combined.
Early in each case, engage with the court users by scheduling a hearing, triage cases to receive the right level of court involvement, or connect the court users with resources, such as an attorney to review paperwork, to ensure that all parties are ready to proceed.
Allow administrative motions, such as continuances or date changes, to be handled over email or text.
Work with judges to develop guidance to help ensure that nonlawyers can request and receive continuances or scheduling changes as readily as lawyers.

Who’s involved:

Internal Experts

Access to justice
Judges
Leadership
Researchers

External Experts

Legal stakeholders
Researchers

California has a declaration for default that divorce petitioners use to document the steps they have taken, calculate payments, and provide other information that judges use to determine whether a hearing is required before a default judgment can be entered. The declaration reduces the need for petitioners—especially those at risk from domestic violence or whose spouses refuse to engage with their cases—to face their spouse in court.

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

Courts Should Use Technology to Improve User Participation, Reduce Staff Workloads

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)? How to measure it: Review published and internal guidance for court personnel on determining which proceedings and services can be handled remotely.	Test remote platforms and offerings with diverse court users and capture their feedback to ensure accessibility for users with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and low internet bandwidth. Partner with executive branch agencies, libraries, and community centers to set up kiosks or other areas in their facilities where court users can attend court virtually. Who's involved: Internal Experts Access to justice IT staff Leadership Researchers External Experts Community Partners Researchers	NCSC has several resources related to court technology, including how to collect data to improve technologies post-pandemic, a toolkit for remote proceedings, and considerations when drafting or updating remote-hearing protocols. Arizona courts adopted presumptive standards for remote hearings and are sharing their approach with neighboring states. The Indiana Bar Foundation and the Coalition for Court Access placed 150 self-help kiosks in courthouses, libraries, and other public centers throughout the state to provide reliable internet connections for attending court hearings as well as links to online resources, such as rental assistance and the state’s legal assistance portal, IndianaLegalHelp.org.
Can nonlawyers successfully use electronic court processes (e.g., e-filing, e-notarization, uploading evidence, e-payments)? How to measure it: Review published and internal guidance for court personnel on determining which proceedings and services can be handled remotely.	Test remote platforms and offerings with diverse court users and capture their feedback to ensure accessibility for users with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and low internet bandwidth. Partner with executive branch agencies, libraries, and community centers to set up kiosks or other areas in their facilities where court users can attend court virtually. Who's involved: Internal Experts Access to justice IT staff Leadership Researchers External Experts Researchers Court Users Court users	NCSC compiled best practices for user-friendly e-filing systems. Kansas is working with Georgetown University's Judicial Innovation Fellowship, which places and funds technology experts in courts, to design a user-friendly e-filing system for litigants without lawyers and to develop guidance for maintaining and testing the platform. The Massachusetts Trial Court partnered with a user-experience expert to test its remote technology options. The resulting report included findings, recommendations and information about the methodology, which other courts can replicate.

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)?

How to measure it:

Review published and internal guidance for court personnel on determining which proceedings and services can be handled remotely.

Test remote platforms and offerings with diverse court users and capture their feedback to ensure accessibility for users with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and low internet bandwidth.
Partner with executive branch agencies, libraries, and community centers to set up kiosks or other areas in their facilities where court users can attend court virtually.

Who's involved:

Internal Experts

Access to justice
IT staff
Leadership
Researchers

External Experts

Community Partners
Researchers

NCSC has several resources related to court technology, including how to collect data to improve technologies post-pandemic, a toolkit for remote proceedings, and considerations when drafting or updating remote-hearing protocols.
Arizona courts adopted presumptive standards for remote hearings and are sharing their approach with neighboring states.
The Indiana Bar Foundation and the Coalition for Court Access placed 150 self-help kiosks in courthouses, libraries, and other public centers throughout the state to provide reliable internet connections for attending court hearings as well as links to online resources, such as rental assistance and the state’s legal assistance portal, IndianaLegalHelp.org.

Can nonlawyers successfully use electronic court processes (e.g., e-filing, e-notarization, uploading evidence, e-payments)?

How to measure it:

Review published and internal guidance for court personnel on determining which proceedings and services can be handled remotely.

Test remote platforms and offerings with diverse court users and capture their feedback to ensure accessibility for users with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and low internet bandwidth.
Partner with executive branch agencies, libraries, and community centers to set up kiosks or other areas in their facilities where court users can attend court virtually.

Who's involved:

Internal Experts

Access to justice
IT staff
Leadership
Researchers

External Experts

Researchers

Court Users

Court users

NCSC compiled best practices for user-friendly e-filing systems.
Kansas is working with Georgetown University's Judicial Innovation Fellowship, which places and funds technology experts in courts, to design a user-friendly e-filing system for litigants without lawyers and to develop guidance for maintaining and testing the platform.
The Massachusetts Trial Court partnered with a user-experience expert to test its remote technology options. The resulting report included findings, recommendations and information about the methodology, which other courts can replicate.

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

Courts Should Automate Administrative Processes

Metrics, suggested steps, and state examples and resources

Metric	If not, suggested next steps	State examples
Are fee waivers automatic? How to measure it: Review relevant court rules, processes, and forms.	Identify any proxies for income that could automatically trigger a fee waiver, such as receiving assistance from civil legal aid or certain government benefits. Assess whether waiver eligibility criteria are captured in existing forms or could be accessed via connecting court data with other government data systems. Work with data vendor or relevant staff to update the case management system to automatically waive fees for eligible parties. Promote the availability of fee waivers through court clerks and on court websites, relevant forms, and summonses. Who's involved: Internal Experts Access to justice IT staff Leadership Researchers Self-help External Experts Legal stakeholders	To reduce unnecessary court appearances during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an order making fee waivers automatic unless the court had a factual question about the request. Maryland has automatic fee waivers for all court users who are legal aid clients. In California, anyone who receives public benefits can request and receive a fee waiver by completing a form stating that they receive benefits.
Is expungement and sealing of cases automatic? How to measure it: Review relevant laws, court processes, and forms.	Update rules or partner with the legislature to advance automatic record sealing or expungement. Assess which third parties (e.g., police departments) or third-party databases may have case outcome data and develop a protocol for notifying them when a case has been sealed or expunged. Who's involved: Internal Experts Access to justice IT staff Leadership Researchers External Experts Legal stakeholders Researchers	The Superior Court of the District of Columbia automatically seals eviction cases that involve less than $600 in unpaid rent, that do not end in a judgment for the landlord, or are three years removed from a judgment for the landlord, as well as under certain other conditions. The National Low Income Housing Coalition has a toolkit on sealing and expungement of eviction case records. Civil courts can emulate how some criminal courts have addressed sealing or expunging with third parties, such as in Michigan, where the state police and the state’s Department of Technology, Management, and Budget created a system that automatically notifies courts daily about cases that are eligible for expungement without requiring court users to do anything.
Are disability and translation accommodations automatically flagged and provided? How to measure it: Review how the court initially receives interpretation and accommodation information (such as by a litigant filing a document or a judge submitting a request) and whether and how it is then stored and managed within the case management system.	Determine whether the court has a simple form, available in multiple languages, for requesting an interpreter or disability-related accommodation, and if not, create one. Prominently display the option to request a free interpreter in initial communications with litigants. Document users’ initial requests for an interpreter or accommodation and ensure that need is then automatically met for the duration of that case and subsequent cases. Work with a data vendor or relevant staff to update the case management system or develop a separate system to flag accommodation or interpreter needs and either notify appropriate court personnel or automatically coordinate provision of the accommodation or interpreter. Create written materials or short videos to help users understand how interpreters operate in a court context. Who's involved: Internal Experts Access to justice IT staff Researchers Self-help External Experts Community partners Legal stakeholders Researchers	Maryland created a series of short videos and brochures for court users that outline how to request and work with an interpreter in a court setting. In Utah, court users must request an interpreter at least three days before their first hearing, and once the request is submitted, a prominent flag is added in the case management system so that an interpreter is provided for all court activities. California’s courts translated the request for interpreter form into many of the 10 most-commonly spoken languages in the state and worked with a disability rights group to test the request for an accommodation form with people with diverse disabilities.

Metric

If not, suggested next steps

State examples

Are fee waivers automatic?

How to measure it:

Review relevant court rules, processes, and forms.

Identify any proxies for income that could automatically trigger a fee waiver, such as receiving assistance from civil legal aid or certain government benefits.
Assess whether waiver eligibility criteria are captured in existing forms or could be accessed via connecting court data with other government data systems.
Work with data vendor or relevant staff to update the case management system to automatically waive fees for eligible parties.
Promote the availability of fee waivers through court clerks and on court websites, relevant forms, and summonses.

Who's involved:

Internal Experts

Access to justice
IT staff
Leadership
Researchers
Self-help

External Experts

Legal stakeholders

To reduce unnecessary court appearances during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an order making fee waivers automatic unless the court had a factual question about the request.
Maryland has automatic fee waivers for all court users who are legal aid clients.
In California, anyone who receives public benefits can request and receive a fee waiver by completing a form stating that they receive benefits.

Is expungement and sealing of cases automatic?

How to measure it:

Review relevant laws, court processes, and forms.

Update rules or partner with the legislature to advance automatic record sealing or expungement.
Assess which third parties (e.g., police departments) or third-party databases may have case outcome data and develop a protocol for notifying them when a case has been sealed or expunged.

Who's involved:

Internal Experts

Access to justice
IT staff
Leadership
Researchers

External Experts

Legal stakeholders
Researchers

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia automatically seals eviction cases that involve less than $600 in unpaid rent, that do not end in a judgment for the landlord, or are three years removed from a judgment for the landlord, as well as under certain other conditions.
The National Low Income Housing Coalition has a toolkit on sealing and expungement of eviction case records.
Civil courts can emulate how some criminal courts have addressed sealing or expunging with third parties, such as in Michigan, where the state police and the state’s Department of Technology, Management, and Budget created a system that automatically notifies courts daily about cases that are eligible for expungement without requiring court users to do anything.

Are disability and translation accommodations automatically flagged and provided?

How to measure it:

Review how the court initially receives interpretation and accommodation information (such as by a litigant filing a document or a judge submitting a request) and whether and how it is then stored and managed within the case management system.

Determine whether the court has a simple form, available in multiple languages, for requesting an interpreter or disability-related accommodation, and if not, create one.
Prominently display the option to request a free interpreter in initial communications with litigants.
Document users’ initial requests for an interpreter or accommodation and ensure that need is then automatically met for the duration of that case and subsequent cases.
Work with a data vendor or relevant staff to update the case management system or develop a separate system to flag accommodation or interpreter needs and either notify appropriate court personnel or automatically coordinate provision of the accommodation or interpreter.
Create written materials or short videos to help users understand how interpreters operate in a court context.

Who's involved:

Internal Experts

Access to justice
IT staff
Researchers
Self-help

External Experts

Community partners
Legal stakeholders
Researchers

Maryland created a series of short videos and brochures for court users that outline how to request and work with an interpreter in a court setting.
In Utah, court users must request an interpreter at least three days before their first hearing, and once the request is submitted, a prominent flag is added in the case management system so that an interpreter is provided for all court activities.
California’s courts translated the request for interpreter form into many of the 10 most-commonly spoken languages in the state and worked with a disability rights group to test the request for an accommodation form with people with diverse disabilities.

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

Court Processes Should Be Consistent Across and Within Jurisdictions

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.	Require plaintiffs to confirm the validity of the case to defendants and the court as part of the initial filing and notification processes. Develop checklists for clerks to quickly assess the sufficiency of the complaint, service, and other documentation provided. Who's involved: Internal Experts Clerks Judges Leadership Researchers External Experts Legal stakeholders	All debt complaints in Massachusetts and North Carolina must include a copy of the original debt contract, each assignment or sale of the debt, and an itemized accounting of the amount owed. La Crosse County, Wisconsin, has a checklist that clerks complete when reviewing documentation for a debt case.
Can clerks and judges easily substantiate whether defendants are successfully notified of a case against them? How to measure it: Spot-check the veracity of proof of service, such as by reviewing a sample of affidavits to see whether the claims within could reasonably be true, or by calling litigants to see whether they knew about their case.	Require that process servers use GPS and photo verification of the time and place of service and provide guidance for clerks on reviewing that documentation. Require servers or plaintiffs to submit read receipts for service conducted via email, social media, or other electronic communications methods. Coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies that keep address information, such as law enforcement and credit bureaus, to ensure that courts and plaintiffs use valid contact information when notifying defendants. Who's involved: Internal Experts Clerks Judges Leadership Researchers External Experts Legal stakeholders	NCSC produced a brief and discussion related to modernizing how litigants are notified about court cases, which include recommended rule changes to support defendant participation. New York City requires process servers to use GPS to document their location when attempting to deliver documents. Massachusetts requires that plaintiffs use a verified address.

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.

Require plaintiffs to confirm the validity of the case to defendants and the court as part of the initial filing and notification processes.
Develop checklists for clerks to quickly assess the sufficiency of the complaint, service, and other documentation provided.

Who's involved:

Internal Experts

Clerks
Judges
Leadership
Researchers

External Experts

Legal stakeholders

All debt complaints in Massachusetts and North Carolina must include a copy of the original debt contract, each assignment or sale of the debt, and an itemized accounting of the amount owed.
La Crosse County, Wisconsin, has a checklist that clerks complete when reviewing documentation for a debt case.

Can clerks and judges easily substantiate whether defendants are successfully notified of a case against them?

How to measure it:

Spot-check the veracity of proof of service, such as by reviewing a sample of affidavits to see whether the claims within could reasonably be true, or by calling litigants to see whether they knew about their case.

Require that process servers use GPS and photo verification of the time and place of service and provide guidance for clerks on reviewing that documentation.
Require servers or plaintiffs to submit read receipts for service conducted via email, social media, or other electronic communications methods.
Coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies that keep address information, such as law enforcement and credit bureaus, to ensure that courts and plaintiffs use valid contact information when notifying defendants.

Who's involved:

Internal Experts

Clerks
Judges
Leadership
Researchers

External Experts

Legal stakeholders

NCSC produced a brief and discussion related to modernizing how litigants are notified about court cases, which include recommended rule changes to support defendant participation.
New York City requires process servers to use GPS to document their location when attempting to deliver documents.
Massachusetts requires that plaintiffs use a verified address.

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”

The work in action: Arizona streamlines remote court hearings

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.

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.
M. Reinkensmeyer and D. Byers (Director of Court Services, Director of Administrative Office of the Arizona Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts), interview with Casey Chiappetta, The Pew Charitable Trusts, Sept. 27, 2022.
S. Thumma and M. Reinkensmeyer, “Post-Pandemic Recommendations: COVID-19 Continuity of Court Operations During a Public Health Emergency Workgroup,” SMU Law Review Forum 75, no. 1 (2022): 1-119, https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=1039&context=smulrforum#:~:text=Beginning%20April%208%2C%202020%2C%20the,robin%20conversations%2C%20and%20information%20exchanges.