Access To Civil Justice Research Articles

Access to civil justice as a social determinant of health: a legal epidemiological cross-sectional study

BackgroundAlthough it is widely acknowledged that access to civil justice (ATJ) is a key social determinant of health (SDOH), the existing literature lacks empirical evidence supporting ATJ as a SDOH for specific dimensions of health.MethodsA legal epidemiological, cross-sectional, postal survey was conducted on n = 908 randomly sampled participants in Hong Kong in March 2023. Data collected were perceptions of the civil justice system, health, and sociodemographics. Perceived ATJ was assessed using a modified version of the Inaccessibility of Justice scale (IOJ) and Perceived Inequality of Justice scale (PIJ), i.e. the “modified IOJ-PIJ”, consisting of 12 of the original 13 items from both scales divided into two subdomains: “procedural fairness”, and “outcome neutrality”. For health data, quality of life was assessed using the Hong Kong version of the Abbreviated World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF(HK)), psychological distress (including symptoms of anxiety and depression) was assessed using the four-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), and having comorbidities was assessed using Sangha’s Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (SCQ). Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to investigate the relationships between perceived ATJ and the measured health outcomes.ResultsSEM demonstrated that both subdomains for ATJ had significantly negative associations (B < 0; p < 0.05) with all quality-of-life subdomains, except for between outcome neutrality with social relationships; both subdomains for ATJ had significantly positive association (B > 0; p < 0.05) with both anxiety and depression; and, after adjusting for age, only “procedural fairness” had significantly positive association (B > 0; p < 0.05) with having comorbidities.ConclusionThis study provided empirical evidence that ATJ is a SDOH for specific dimensions of health. The results of this study encourage laws, policies, and initiatives aimed at improving ATJ, as well as collaborative efforts from the legal and health sectors through health-justice partnerships, and from the broader community, to safeguard and promote public health by strengthening ATJ.

Summary of Empirical Research on the Civil Justice Process: 2008-2013

In 2007, fueled by concerns over declining access to civil justice, the American College of Trial Lawyers (“ACTL”) Task Force on Discovery and Civil Justice (“Task Force”), in partnership with IAALS, embarked on a journey to define and address the problems of delay and cost in the system. While the mission was anything but new, the Task Force met it with new fervor. Each member had counseled countless individuals and businesses leaders who, when facing a legal issue upsetting in its own right, also had to face a difficult choice between walking away from their cause at some point or becoming overwhelmed by the court process. Based on extensive personal experience, it was becoming increasingly clear to the Task Force that the American civil justice system, considered a fundamental aspect of our democracy and a model for the world, struggles to meet the needs of litigants today appropriately, including the needs of our family members, friends, neighbors, shops, restaurants, and charities. It also was becoming increasingly clear that something should — no, must — be done about it.Following extensive background research, a survey of ACTL Fellows, and serious discussion and debate, the Task Force issued a “Final Report” in 2009, containing specific recommendations for improving the civil justice process.The Task Force’s work sparked a national conversation about the future of our civil justice system, further research on the litigation process by a number of individuals and organizations, and the establishment of numerous pilot projects in state and federal courts around the country.These efforts are ongoing, and there is much more research to come in the next few years and beyond. Nevertheless, it is useful to pause and take stock of the data collected, analyzed, and disseminated since 2008, the onset of the Task Force’s work. As procedural decision makers look to determine the shape of civil justice to come, they will be asking, “Where do we go from here to shape a just, speedy, and inexpensive process?” In making those decisions, it is critical to ask, “What have we learned in the last five years or so?”

Comparative Civil Justice: Decision According to Law in the United States, Germany and Korea: Chapter 3 Lawyers & Legal Systems: Access to Justice

This paper is superseded by a later draft of the complete book, which is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1711003. This is a working draft of a chapter in a book that introduces and compares civil justice systems in the United States, Germany and Korea. This chapter shows how the American legal system, compared to its German and Korean counterparts, does a poor job of providing access to justice. It points out how the American practice of no recovery of legal fees, high fees for all, and lack of provision of civil legal aid, discourages righteous litigants in ordinary cases. The chapter shows how the German and Korean systems do a better job of providing access for all to the legal system. It shows that both systems make righteous litigants nearly whole by using “loser pays” systems, which helps keep legal fees for all low. It shows how both systems provide better access to civil justice for the indigent. The German system guarantees the indigent civil legal aid; the Korean system makes pro se representation a real possibility in most civil cases. The chapter also gives brief descriptions of the instrumentalities of civil justice, i.e., lawyers, judges, legal education and ministries of justice. It observes that there is no institution in the United States to look out for the common good in litigation that is comparable to ministries of justice in Germany and the Supreme Court in Korea.