 We're going to start with Professor Stout with Access to Justice. Thank you, Carl. But this has been exciting for me. It's interesting to be in a group that has this sort of focused agenda, a cause, you will. It's, I guess, the thing I've been involved in for the last 10 years also a cause, and it's been focused on access to justice and technology. But I have some roots in sort of the themes that you've been talking about this morning. 15 years ago, about this time I had maybe five or eight million dollars in 15 or 20 market people in about 30 or 40 programs working on the first version of Lexis that was delivered over the web. I was for four years Vice President of Lexis on leave from this academic role. So I have some history with all this work that's going on now. I've done the analysis that David did earlier, and we watched these companies merge together and so on. And so you have all these sort of reactions to, well, if you make that free go, I'm just going to paint with that and all these kinds of things. And repeatedly I keep thinking, who's the audience? Who's the customer? Who's the end user? Who is this really aimed at? Who's going to get something out of this initiative? And maybe there's a little bit of a way to begin thinking about that in the context of a very narrow little slice of a crusade that we've been on here for about 10 or 11 years. So what's this access to justice slice? What is a massive need? There are 51 million people as of 2007 in need who are eligible for the Legal Services Corporation Services. 17.6 million of them were children. That was an increase of 1.8, 1.18 million from 2006. And it was before this crash that we're experiencing now. So these numbers must be significantly larger than there are any new data available on the Legal Services Corporation site. The Legal Services Corporation is the nationally funded source for about eighty-a-half, a third to a half of the money used for civil legal aid, and they're funded agencies to a million cases a year. Yet half of the people that come to those folks are turned away because they don't have the resources to take care of them. And every study that's been done by state justice communities shows that 80% of the legal needs of the poor and the working poor are unmet. People figure out some other way to deal with things. There's also a phenomenon that affects judges and clerks and court administrators who are not as evil as I heard this morning. Actually, they just have a job to do, right? Their job isn't to help you. They're accustomed to the judges and the coverage of the lawyers and the other people that are working their way through that system. And you can then say, I want to go publish out and put it on the web and say, well, that's nice. I'm busy. I think that's go see what's going on with them. And as you pointed out this morning, the chief judge isn't a politician. I'm going to do these little comments on things as I go along because I probably just things to say. But we have some very good court administrators who work through this study, like I can tell you about them. They were faced and have been faced and are continuing to be faced with massive numbers of people coming through their court systems, unrepresented. These are some basic numbers. Their numbers are much worse than this now, driven largely by consumer issues and by foreclosure problems. The numbers of unrepresented people who are being forced into courts to solve life, very important life problems is growing dramatically. So about 11 years ago with some very wonderful partners including the National Center for State Courts and State Justice Institute and a variety of other folks helped fund us, we tried to put together a project that would help address this issue by bringing new eyes, new insights, new approaches to this problem. And we associated with our Institute for Design and a systematic design expert named Chuck Owen. And we took teams of students from the design school who are all graduate students who are very clever people that help design cell phones and desks and the traffic flow for the museum campus at the Chicago Lakefront, things like that. And these people, we put them through a year-long process of research to try to understand the needs of self-represented people who were not getting their needs met by the courts. And to some extent the customer all there was also the court systems themselves, the court administrators and judges and so on. And this is sort of the phasing of that work. This is the result of the first couple of phases of the research report attempted to identify barriers and employ system technology to fix the process. So what do we find out? Well, cost is a barrier. They don't get lawyers because they're not having money. Most of the people attribute that cost of the court system to lawyers. But apropos almost everything that was talked about this morning, the huge problem in the middle of this whole process that we discovered was complexity. So I had this image of somebody with my iPad voyeur app, right? And so I'm on the plane going home tonight and I watched the carnage on Gray's Anatomy, everybody getting killed last night. And then right after that I bring up, you know, like Citizens United and page through that and enjoy myself doing that. And it says, who can read that case, right? He can't read that case. And I've been in this law business for 40 years. There's also this lack of legal representation, distrust of lawyers, lack of information about processes and so on. Here was the fun stuff. We took these design students and my law students, we went to five different courts and we did ethnographic research. I think I recommend to you, if you've been in a career for a long time and you want to find out what's really going on in the shoes of the customer. We went out and stood at the front door in Boulder, Colorado, in the John May Ramsey, you know, courthouse. And we waited for the doors to open at seven o'clock in the morning. And we wandered through with the self-represented people and we got ourselves frisked. Then we walked with them and prompted them and we took their pictures if they let us and interviewed them. And then we found out what they did and when they went through their court process, we asked them before what they were trying to get. And when they came out, we asked them, did you get what you wanted? What could be better except winning? Things like that. And it turns out that self-represented litigants are very committed and really engaged with a commitment to traditional court systems. They respect the judge and court administrative people a lot. But they also see this system as hostile, confusing, disoriented, inefficient. They find the buildings and the signage completely confusing. The paperwork that's needed to do the process to get them through any simple little thing is massively baffling. They just can't figure it out. It's even difficult when you go to the clerk's office and they say, well fill out a form to get your case up on the document. And they'll give you the form. There's no place to write there, right? There's no flat service to lay down and write it out even if you're pulling it out by hand. They think that alternate dispute resolution is mysterious. Isn't the judge supposed to decide? We won't go to the judge. Why would I want to go to the clerk's office? They find hearings unnerving. They're humanizing. They wait forever. When they find the chance to speak, they're frequently told not to say what they want to say. When they win, which is occasionally the case, it takes forever, if ever, to try to collect on what they've achieved. So they get a $500 judgment against their neighbor for napping over the fence. How do you get the money? Doesn't he just pay me? The German design students on our team said, well, doesn't everybody just have a credit card? Why don't you just charge off on their credit card? Those are your lawyers who you can get. It's just a whole new set of lawsuits to collect the money. That's what you get. We're getting the judge. All right. This is a little image. Actually, this is an actual image. I think it's the 734 of the Daly Center, the biggest courtroom in Illinois. I thought the fuzzy aspect of the other world was really an accurate portrayal of the fuzz that people must see. They come in there and it's just like people running around. I remember 40 years ago, going over there on an assignment from the law firm, I was working on a file or something, and that's how I felt. It's like that. So what were we about? We were supposed to identify all these problems, try to get a new look at how to solve the problems, and then build some tools and prototypes that might solve some of those problems. A key set of the problems are dealing with very simple things. I need a name change because I don't want to be known by my husband, the abuser's name anymore. I need a guardianship so my child can go to school in a district where they're not going to be threatened by a gang. I need a divorce, and I haven't seen my husband for 15 years. We have no money, we have nothing else, and I want to get married again. Simple things that should be easy. It turns out that they're not, if we just discover. So we put together a series of design suggestions, and from those design suggestions then we build a prototype that pulled together about 10 of those solutions into a single prototype. And it sort of looked like this. We took a very simple procedure called the joint simplified dissolution of marriage procedure, and we put it into a system that allowed a self-represented person to go to a website and walk down a path with these sort of avatar-like characters to justice. Well, it turns out that it's more powerful than that. They can walk through step after step and see progress as they move down. They rock them into the scene, they identify their name and sex right in the first screen, so a man or a woman drops into the scene and they become this traveler down the path. It also turns out that we can put all kinds of education here. And as we ask each question as we walk down the path, we can pop up definitions for every term that they're likely to fail down their state. We can give them a map as to show them how far they've achieved. We can show them pictures of the documents. We can run a video and say, this is what it's going to look like in the courtroom when you walk up in front of the judge. He'll be sitting up there or show me sitting up there, and you'll be staying back here and don't leave this spot. All those things are possible. So it's a fabulous just in time learning environment, educating the public about the law. Developed by students, you can judge with these sort of organizations, and it turns out when the system, this is sort of the next step, you sort of walk down the street and you get to the court house, it turns out that when you test it, it tests wonderfully well, and people learn and can engage with this and do very complicated things if you break it down to very simple steps, that step, step, step, and learn as they go along what they need to know. The only problem was that that prototype cost John maybe $350,000, that one little thing. I didn't get much of that, but yeah. John, the other thing I noticed with our team this morning is that the technologist and the domain specialist pair, there's a key element to success in this field, and we have one example back there with Oye, and John and I are sort of like that kind of crowd, we've been following John around for like 20 years and every time he comes up with a new idea, he goes, well, I think I'll try that, and then I put my name on it and he does the work, you know, it's great. Tom Bruce and Peter Martin were like that and it went out as well. So the solution to this is to build a tool that builds the guided interviews, right? And John's group, the Center for Computer Assistive Legal Instruction, had the rudimentary pieces of that because they had an authoring tool that very low-tech authors, law professors, could use to build lessons, right, to teach the law, to law students. So he took that core and built a solution provider that helps clerks in courts and legal aid lawyers and others build these guided interviews in a whole variety of things. And at first, it was to sit inside a structure of the Legal Services Corporation that developed by putting a website in every state that was the authentic source of legal aid information and resources, right? Step number one, very powerful concept of the Legal Services Corporation implemented through something called the Technology Innovation Grant System. Secondly, they put a national server for hot docs online up and made hot docs the standard back-end document assembly tool that was given to them by Lexus and currently the new hot docs owner. And then our stuff sort of sat on top of that. And so what A to J author did was substitute for a very formal business-like interview that hot docs provides sort of learning environment there instead. Okay? It turned out to be an extraordinary success and I say that with all modesty because I've tried dozens of path-breaking things and every one of them has been a failure. I've been trying things since 1978 and this is the first one that really oh, Lexus.com one. That was a good one. That made like maybe a billion of that. Some pile of that money. But this has been a great success. For example, in 1988 I wrote the first electronic casebook for a law and predicted that there would never be another print casebook carried around the day. Everybody would carry around laptops instead. Now they carry around laptops and these big fat books that I assigned my students in my own classes. I mean that's crazy. So A to J author was built. It's evolving to the courts and the legal system on the web using this infrastructure I've described. It has the capability to do all this education, this training, this interface capability and this is sort of a little bit of a graphic about its success. There's 29 states that have active A to J author legal services or court-based development projects. Four and 38 active templates that's actually down from about eight or nine hundred of them were like early versions that were still up on the national server that had to be sort of cleaned up. So they're four and 38 actively used A to J templates right now posted on the national server. Last year, 142,000 individuals used those tools to try to repair a document or get their rights or figure out where to go or do something in the court system and in the first quarter of 2010 so we're on track for like 200, 220,000 users this year and I think eventually that this will hockey stick, right? I think we're still sort of in the bottom end of this thing and I think eventually there'll be a million million, maybe a million a month people using this tool to solve problems that they have in a variety of ways. Well it turns out that in addition to being the front-end to document assembly and helping people put their documents together there also could be a website guy. So you can ask somebody to ask them a bunch of questions and then instead of preparing a document using hot docs you can just take them someplace on the web just deliver them there. In addition if you wanted to do online intake, if you're the seven legal services programs in Ohio and you wanted to allow people to get on a web page anywhere in the world actually certainly anywhere in the state at any time of the day or night or week or weekend and find out if they're likely eligible for legal aid and if they have the kind of case that legal aid would cover in Ohio and get to the right one of those seven organizations, right? You can go online go through an A to J author intake process and your data can be dumped right into their case management software. And a it's not really a complete case, it's like a proto-case that the holy area is created because there's a confidence check and some staffing work that follows that. But you're basically ready right? And the best part of this that people in Ohio say is this lots of people who they used to put into a big long telephone queue or tell them to come to their office on Thursday morning between 10 and 12, lots of people who are in those queues or waiting in those offices don't have to go there anymore because they aren't eligible and they find out they're doing this website thing right? They save themselves and the organization lots of time and make the whole process more efficient as well as obviously more convenient easier for better people to follow. Turns out that you can put this in front of e-filing systems as well and we've been working with the Eastern District of Missouri and St. Louis Federal District Court there in a pilot project to build this set of front ends to the case management electronic case filing system that is now in place in every district court and bankers court in the country and every other court now in the federal system. And it's ready to go interestingly enough we had sort of the opposite, the opposite administrator chief judge thing right? So we had the clerk of the court and the administrators of the court were all ready to hook this right into CME and the judges said, I'm a little bit afraid of that going directly again. So they have now key asks in St. Louis where you go and you do all this work and instead of pushing the button and having to go right into the system it goes over and prints off a bunch of stuff from the complaint and the cover sheet and all that stuff and then the procé litigant walks it over to the clerk's office and then the clerk scans it and he's like, hello who can solve this problem for you? And the reason it's being done is because the judges don't want it to go right in. This is another sort of intersection point Carl. The electronic filing system that's been put in place in the federal system is essentially mandatory for every lawyer in every district court where it's duplicated. You have to use it in order to file something but it may be an exception occasionally but you have to use it. I think one of those sets of local rules say that if you're not a lawyer you may not use it. You can't use it. How's that for access to justice? You can't get into the court system unless you're a lawyer unless you do it in paper and all that convenient stuff about filing at 1159 only works if you're a lawyer it doesn't work if you're a real person. But this system is ready to at least take a run at that. We've also had some folks who thought maybe this is transformative and I love that notion I could be involved in something transformative. I'll go with that. The notion is maybe you could face building permits and liquor licenses and all kinds of administrative things maybe you could face all the legal and administrative and government needs of the public with these kinds of triage systems and so you would come to one and if you had a criminal problem or a civil problem you wouldn't have to be shunted off into the you don't qualify area of the procedure your data instead of going into the holding tank for the legal aid organizations in Ohio would go to the public defender of the proper county in Ohio and be ready for a treatment in that setting or any of the other varieties of places that you can imagine. When you start thinking about that it's like whoa this is powerful stuff here in terms of making legal processes not raw data but legal processes available to people who can then navigate them themselves with a lot of help all the time put together by law students and lawyers and others so having this set of wild wonderful insights I teach in law school I'm going to have these meetings in law school and I heard Tim say this morning that Stanford's doing some stuff that's sort of tied in with the head of the law library there having students involved in writing synopses in court cases in California and so while I sort of thought with a bunch of others well you know there's 152,000 law students and there are these million people that need help and the law students really want some experience they want to talk to people they want to try to be a lawyer they want to interact with the court system and these people really need help right so why don't we try to put that all together and so we brought a bunch of people into this very room we talked about it for a long time and actually wrote a white paper yeah that was a white paper okay alright now what well we had a couple of models that we looked at here's one model we tried to set up a law review where instead of writing law review articles that people toss in the bottom of whatever drawer they have they would write guided interviews and they would get credit like 10 students you reference Google references these synopses and their name is in the byline is there so they got some visibility in Google they will use that kind of high visibility and give some credentials and they can point to an employer to a place on the web where something they did is actually being used for people and so on it's been like pulling teeth to do this and do we have people that do it but the throughput is very very thin I mean there's a lot of stuff in their lives and this isn't that high visibility thing it's not the law review it's the editorial where I made it look as low as I could this works better this is actually a different view of that same fuzzy picture I showed you of the 6th floor of the Daily Center and that's one of my former students who now works for NTAP and actually there were three librarians who were pretending that they had a deep need of legal services and they don't know what to do and there's some computers along that wall right in front of the man with the red shirt and they have these document assembly ADJ guided interviews available to them and people are being helped through those processes helped to find things on the Illinois Legal Aid Online website that has all this information for Illinois and also helped to go through that interview process because a lot of people don't like to touch mice and don't know much about it and you still have some digital divide things and you don't need to be a lawyer you don't need to be certified all you need is maybe 5-6 hours of training and first year students love this because they can put something on the resume they can experience the courthouse a little bit and also feel that rush of helping people and we have a lot of people signing up for this, there are 150 volunteers so far and we've helped a lot of pro-savismers using this method this approach to helping educate the public about the law is central to the emerging mission of librarians and law librarians and trying to think how many I think there are like 16 or 17 counties now in Illinois where there is a self-help web center like this that's staffed either by the county law librarian or the county library not the regular county library and they have space in those places negotiating with space on the spectacular 29th floor of the daily building right now with the librarian of the good county law library this is a place where law librarians can touch the public in a way that's protected and effective and powerful because these tools can be vetted by the most expert folks in those fields and the librarian does not have to give legal advice they can just help them find the right thing and help them with any difficult idea with the process maybe these are enough as ways to get students energized I'm trying a new way in the fall and I've offered a four credit clinic basically and I'm going to make students go to the web center and figure out what people need and then come back and write some of these tools and help deliver them and they're getting four credits I tried this ten years ago and nobody signed up and my daughter was a student here and she didn't even sign up she's a legal lawyer and Cleveland so you'd think she would tie into this but I got 16 students for the fall and I'm real excited about this going forward so we'll see if that works as a way to get students involved in this we have two and a half minutes or a minute and a half or something for questions suggestions do I have it wrong? Yes sir Andrew Polar Andrew for in particular for the sort of guided interview product what would be the success metrics and what do you look at to confirm for yourself and also for promotional purposes this is sort of like they have these missiles that are launched and forget they just shoot them off and then you fly away and then they just go on their own time to target these are a little like that the only metric that we're really getting now is how many of the interviews result in an assembled document and I want to say A to J interviews that numbers like 70% or something like that that may be more of a measure of is the interview too long people just don't want to finish it it's too hard to do nobody's doing anything now so there are places like Idaho where every state Supreme Court form of any has been converted into this thing and they have a very high penetration rate for A to J other guys interviews there where we could probably try to do a study there and follow up like code the documents that are produced this way we don't have anything it's wonderfully successful what do you want to be five years from now? retired playing golf I'd like to see this like massively utilized and I think that's going to happen I think it's going to happen I know John we have a five year plan we're doing a sustainability analysis I'd love to take your input so if you you tell me where we should go five years from now I spoke last year almost at this exact date to the Canadian administrative law judges on the theory that the whole administrative law world is a perfect place to apply for food and stand social security to provide all kinds of other avenues for address and gather up information to teach people things I think that's a heavy place to go and we can work in that space I'd like to see students more involved and students more engaged and more valued for the work that they do in this space and we'll see if the course helps them John, figure out