As I have previously blogged, this Friday is the deadline for Poster Proposals for the open gathering in Chicago on Research into Access to Justice to be held on December 7. Proposals should be sent to A2Jworkshop@abfn.org by Friday, November 16.
I am sharing the three Poster Proposals just submitted by the Self-Represented Litigation Network. As I am sure you know, these are one page proposals, and if accepted, require only the generation for display and discussion, of a poster: “A poster is an approximately 30” by 40” rectangular board on which you can put text and figures describing research findings or research needs. You may choose to print out several sheets of paper, or a single large poster paper.”
Here is the key para from the Poster Proposal on Simplificaton.
. . . [T] the poster would highlight several areas of research need. Among them might be: a broader review of the elements of simplification in other court and access innovations; review of the approaches of prior reforms (including the fundamental “Federal” rules from the thirties; analysis of stakeholders and possible processes for simplification reform; economic studies of costs/benefits, and of impact on potential stakeholders and interest groups; and identification of substantive areas most amenable to such approaches.
Here is the key para from the Poster Proposal on Triage.
As a general matter, there is an emerging consensus that matters such as party power, party capacity, opponent representation status, stake, and legal merits will be key elements in triage processes. We need a coherent approach to the understanding of triage options, and a way of making sure that research on needs, service innovations, outcomes, and processes will all feed properly into an integrated triage picture that can be used to build, test, validate, and deploy triage protocols for access and fairness. The Poster would lay out the need, summarize the work so far, and start to explore the elements and structure that would be needed in this component of the research agenda.
Here is the key language from the Proposal on Outcome Measures
Some of the possible outcome and proxy approaches, which would be tested and validated in such a research initiative would be:
- Was the case decided on substance rather than on technicalities?
- Were the facts and the law before the decision maker(s)?
- Was the outcome within the range of discretion of the decision maker based on the facts and law presented? Or within those available for presentation?
- Did the litigants feel that that the decision maker was presented all the facts and law?
- Did the litigants feel the decision was “fair”?
The greatest value of the research would be in the comparison of these measures, which would, or rather might, provide some confidence in their long-term use.
Naturally, I welcome discussion of other possible Posters, the whole research agenda question that the Posters are intended to help stimulate, and the implications of the specific ones that are suggested here.