16.3.3 Proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism

Equal access to justice remains a primary challenge within the United States, especially in regard to low and middle income defendants affording quality legal representation within the justice system. In a social system in which minority and traditionally disadvantaged groups are significantly more likely to be arrested, convicted, and experience lengthy prison sentences, it is essential to prioritize equity in justice mechanisms for both defendants and plaintiffs. Under United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, Target 3 calls for promoting “the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensuring access to justice for all,” which includes improving conflict resolution mechanisms and addressing key issues such as large populations of unsentenced detainees in prison systems. 

The DMV not only comprises three state-level justice systems, but is also home to the federal courts of the United States. Ensuring equitable mechanisms at the local level within the region is essential for promoting the same standards in the federal system, and thus an understanding of the state of DMV justice equity is necessary. This analysis will provide insight on the state of the justice systems in the District of Columbia (DC), Maryland (MD), and Virginia (VA), with a specific focus on access to public defenders and other civil legal services, as well as addressing difficulties for low and middle income plaintiffs and/or defendants to access paid legal services. Additionally, this analysis will evaluate how the number of unsentenced detainees in these three jurisdictions compare to the national average, and assess current mechanisms to address overcrowding and unequal detainment. 

Access to Legal Services 

To evaluate access to legal services in the DMV, this analysis will evaluate the number of pro se litigants, or plaintiffs who represent themselves in court, and access to civil legal aid, pro bono legal services, or public defender (indigent) defense services. In 2019 in the United States, over 76,500 civil cases involved pro se plaintiffs or defendants, out of 220,000 civil cases total. Between the years 2000 and 2019, 25.2% of civil case plaintiffs were pro se, compared to 2% of defendants. 72% of civil cases involved represented plaintiffs or defendants. The primary form of civil case filing involving pro se plaintiffs were, by a significant margin, prisoner petitions on account of rights violations within the prison system or matters related to individual cases. In total, 91% of prisoner petitions involve pro se plaintiffs, compared to 11% of non-prisoner civil cases. The second most common case filing involving pro se plaintiffs was human rights violations. 

In regard to legal aid, at the national level, the American Bar Association estimates that there are between 60 and 90% of defendants in the United States that require publicly funded attorneys, of which there are approximately 15,000 throughout the country. Due to this limited number, there is a significant gap between the number of defendants who need public legal services and those who receive it. As the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) estimates in their 2022 Justice Gap Report, 92% of low-income citizens do not receive any or enough legal aid for civil legal cases. These cases include those related to housing and health care, education, income, and safety. LSC reports that 74% of low-income households experienced more than one civil legal problem in the past year, with nearly half not seeking legal aid due to cost concerns. Comparatively, the study reports that 73% of higher-income individuals are confident in their ability to afford a lawyer, emphasizing a distinct justice gap between income brackets. However, LSC also reports that, despite almost 2 million requests for help per year, nearly half of these requests are turned away due to limited resources. Due to COVID-19, the justice gap continued to expand, with 33% of low-income citizens experiencing at least one civil legal issue linked to the pandemic, despite increasingly limited resources as a result of shutdowns.

The justice system jurisdictions within the DMV are not immune to this access gap, but there is a lack of consistent data over time to provide a full picture of the state of these mechanisms. In DC, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that in 2013, there were 100 public defenders compared to 13,000 total cases closed, while in 2019, the DC Access to Justice Commission reported 46 civil legal service providers to provide low-cost or pro bono services. However, consistent data over the following decade has been difficult to find. In 2017, the Civil Division for DC Courts reported 212 cases involving a Pro Se party, comprising 57% of total cases. The Domestic Violence Division, Family Court Operations, and Probate Divisions reported a total of 10,885 Pro Se Plaintiffs in the same year, comprising just over 60% of total cases. The vast majority of these cases were in the Domestic Violence Division, in which 88% of Plaintiffs were Pro Se, compared to just 12% of Plaintiffs who had representation. While data on the total number of low and moderate-income DC residents who face legal aid barriers is difficult to obtain, these numbers of Pro Se participants reflect the scope of individuals who appeared in court unrepresented. 

In Maryland, almost 73,000 residents received assistance from court self help centers and remote services in 2018, which provide key resources for pro se litigants and information on civil legal aid. Between 2018 and 2020, the Maryland Office of the Public Defender reported an average of 800 cases per public defender in Baltimore County alone. Prince George’s County reported the highest number of caseloads with an average of 1600 in 2018 and 2019, before a decrease to 600 in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The overburdening of public defenders in Maryland has long been criticized, with concerns rising about the quality of low cost/ pro bono legal services in counties with increased caseloads. In 2020, the Office released a report on Maryland’s Workload Reduction Pilot Program, in which private attorneys take multi-case traffic dockets to reduce the caseload for public defenders.  

In Baltimore County, the program reduced caseloads by 2,266 for public defenders, compared to 6,636 in Prince George’s County, and 3,441 in Montgomery County. While this program has helped decrease the caseload for public defenders, the number of residents seeking aid for pro se representation and public defender representations indicates that the demand for these services remains high. 

In Virginia, data on Pro Se litigants is limited, though the state released a self-help website to assist Pro Se plaintiffs in 2016. However, Virginia Defenders Indigent Defense Commission releases an annual report on the state of public defense services. In 2021, Virginia employed 1,802 attorneys, 1,557 of which were certified for felony charges, 1,768 for misdemeanor charges, and 807 for juvenile charges. In 2021, the total caseload for public defenders in Virginia was 70,863, with the highest caseload in Virginia Beach, Richmond, Fairfax, and Fredericksburg. In 2020, there was an estimated one public defender per 348,581 residents, and one public defender office per 1,645 square miles. Overall, Virginia ranked 29th in public defender offices per capita. Similar to DC and Maryland, this number provides insight on the lack of resources to meet the demand for public defenders or other low cost legal services. 

Beyond legal aid, the ability to access information related to a person’s case, find transportation ato courthouses, police stations, or other legal institutions, and have adequate resources related to things like child care and  language comprehension are just as essential to promoting equal access to justice systems as legal representation. Anything from online portals allowing defendants to pay fines to shuttle services providing for ease of access to proceedings that are required to happen in person can increase the ability for all people to engage in the legal systems of the communities they live in. In the DMV, this analysis will evaluate the existence of online portals to pay traffic violations and/or lower stakes civil case fines, access to courthouses by public transportation, multilingual services, and resources related to child care or work day compensation to assess the ease of access to the justice system in DC, Maryland, and Virginia. 

E-Services 

Beginning with online access, having the ability to handle low-stakes civil cases, such as traffic violations, renewing licenses, and accessing case records without having to go to court in person is an effective way of ensuring that the justice system is accessible to those who cannot easily take the day off of work, find childcare, or find transportation into metropolitan centers to participate in proceedings. E-services in court systems have been an effective mechanism for increasing access to justice in countries such as Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan, and is a key strategy to apply at home in our progress toward achieving SDG 16. This is particularly noticeable in the wake of COVID-19, in which justice systems around the world struggled with delivering essential services amid widespread shutdowns. 

In the DMV, all three legal jurisdictions have online services available to residents. Beginning with DC, civil cases in the Court of Appeals and the DC Superior Court can be filed electronically by both self-represented parties and their attorneys. The Court of Appeals eFiling system allows for these parties to view case dockets and submit fillings, while having access to a real-time publicly available case docket. The Superior Court requires eFiling for Civil Actions Branch, Criminal Division, Criminal Domestic Violence, Probate, and Tax Division cases and provides hearing dates, times, and locations in an online portal. There is a cost associated with using the eFiling system for the Superior Court, but a fee waiver is available on a case by case basis. DC’s online services also include a portal for jurors called to jury duty, access to the active warrant list and case database, Criminal Division calendars, information on finding legal representation, portals for fraud reporting, and access to key court forms including the Confidential Information Form, Petition for Civil Protection Order, and Motion to Modify Custody forms. Online payments can be made for court fees or fines related to Criminal Division fines, fees, or restitution, Civil Actions Branch, Landlord & Tenant Branch, and Small Claims Branch fees, case payments, copies of family documents, marriage licenses and certificate fees, and bonds, in addition to probate or tax related fees through either PayPort of the DC CaseFileXpress eFiling system. Residents can also request a web interpreter or translator through an online portal. The DC Department of Motor Vehicles also has an online portal for traffic violations. 

In Maryland, eFiling is available for District Court cases in Prince Goerge’s County and through several eFiling service providers who qualify as a Vendor Electronic Filing Service Provider (VEFSP), which offer different costs and features. These providers include ABC Legal, Click Notices, Court FIling Maryland, File & ServeXpress, GreenFiling, InfoTrack, Legal Automation Systems, Tyler Technologies, and US Legal Pro. Tyler Technologies, the Maryland Electronic Court Vendor (MDEC), provides an e-filing service with no costs other than mandated court costs. MDEC is a project to create a Judiciary-wide case management system to allow for the electronic storing and processing of cases state-wide. In addition to eFiling, Maryland E-Services also include a licensing portal to view, apply, edit, or renew business license, databases for Maryland Court Records, appellate opinions from 1995 to the present, domestic violence public reports, and wills and estates. The People’s Law Library and Maryland State Law Library also provide online services to request literature or speak to a librarian. Job opportunities, court forms, juror services, and online assistance from the District Court Help Center are also available. In terms of online payment, Maryland provides a portal for traffic violations. Online payments for civil and criminal costs are determined on a county basis, and there is no state-wide online payment system for these fees. 

In Virginia, the Virginia Judiciary E-Filing System (VJEFS) is for use only by members of the Virginia State Bar and staff for most civil cases in the VA Circuit Court. VJEFS tracks case submissions, provides notifications on case updates by email, and allows for fee payment online. In addition, Virginia provides an Appellate Courts Electronic System (VACES) to file briefs, grant appeals, and docketed original jurisdiction cases with the Supreme Court of Virginia or VA Court of Appeals. Virginia also provides case status and information for the Supreme Court of VIrginia, the Court of Appeals, the Circuit Court, and General District Court. Virginia residents can also access databases of criminal and traffic case information to confirm date of birth, in addition to the Electronic Voucher Payment System portal to make payments on legal vouchers, and pay traffic tickets and criminal case fees in a Circuit Court, General District Court, and fees related to other cases in Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. Residents can also access land records including deeds, marriage licenses, judgements, and wills for certain courts throughout the state, so long as the user is registered with a local Circuit Court clerk. Employment opportunities, a fee calculator, and a database of court-appointed attorneys, guardians ad litem, judges, magistrates, and mediators are also available through the VA Courts website. 

Child Care, Economic Compensation, and Interpretation 

In instances that require a visit to Court, major barriers include finding childcare, compensating for potential loss of a day’s income, and lack of translation services. By providing child care, economic compensation, and translation services, accessibility to court services increases, allowing for more citizens to engage in the justice system. 

In DC, the DC Courts system operates a Child Care Center which offers free childcare services to any member of the public that has in-person business or is serving as a juror. Any child who is toilet trained ages 2.5 to 12 are welcome at the center, and staff is trained to accommodate children with disabilities. The Center requires parents to come with medical and dental documentation before admittance. Jurors in DC are eligible for $57 a day, or a $7 travel stipend depending on specific employment conditions. Additionally, the DC Office of Court Interpreting Services (OCIS) provides an online form to request an interpreter, a complaint form, multilingual editions of court information, and a list of certified interpreters, including those certified in Sight Translation, Consecutive Interpretation, and Simultaneous Interpretation. Real-time captioning or CART services and assistive listening devices are also available through the DC Court System. 

In Maryland, child care centers are on a county basis. Montgomery County, for example, has a free center accepting children between the ages three and 12 for residents conducting business at the Circuit Court. However, this center cannot accept children of jurors or children whose parents are doing business in different courts, including the District Court. There is no set child care center for state level courts. Economic compensation is provided to jurors, ranging from $30 to $60 a day. The Maryland Judiciary provides interpretation services for individuals who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) and those in need of additional translation services. Individuals must submit a form to request a spoken language interpreter no less than 3 days before the proceeding. Some courthouses are staffed with full-time Spanish interpreters and court information is available in Spanish, Chinese, French, Korean, and Russian languages. American Sign Language interpretation and other services for persons with disabilities are available upon the submission of a Request for Accommodation for Person with Disability form.

Virginia does not have child care centers in their court systems. In regard to economic compensation, jurors are paid $30 a day. Virginia does have a Foreign Language Service Division (FLS) to provide translation services, with specific emphasis on Korean, Spanish, and Vietnamese. VA Courts provide complaint forms and versions of court forms in these three languages. The Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing provides an average of 200 requests for services from both state agencies and Virginia Courts.

Transportation Access 

Public transportation access to legal institutions is another element to ensuring the accessibility to the justice system. In DC, access to the Courthouse is possible via the Judiciary Square metro station and the Archives-Navy Memorial station. Parking is very limited and paid, thus the Court encourages the use of public transportation over a personal vehicle. Compensation is provided to jurors, but there is no specific financial support for those doing business within the court. Because Maryland and Virginia are state jurisdictions, transportation access is determined on a county basis. However, the Maryland Courts website provides information for transportation to each court building on their website. Some counties in Virginia, like Loudoun county and Fairfax county have information on public transportation to their respective court houses. In the case of Loudoun county, resources are provided for transportation assistance for specific individuals.

Combatting Access to Justice Inequality  

It is clear based on these statistics that the DMV region has disparities both in accessibility to legal services and in the number of pretrial detainees. In each case, minority and disadvantaged comprise the majority of inmates, both pretrial and convicted, and are more likely to require pro bono, indigent, or civil service legal aid. As a result, there are several programs and organizations in each jurisdiction that advocate for increased equity both in receiving legal services and decreasing the number of pretrial detainees. 

In regard to legal aid, including pro bono and civil legal services, as well as bail funds, DC has several programs and organizations in addition to the office of the Public Defender. For example, the Office of the Attorney General for DC offers its own pro bono program, in which recent law school graduates and experienced practitioners work as public interest fellows or pro bono attorneys. In addition, the DC Access to Justice Commission, created by the DC Court of Appeals in 2005, organizes both public and private funding for civil legal services, conducts legal needs assessments for DC and compiles reports on the impact of crises such as the 2008 recession on the legal system. The Commission also organizes efforts to increase pro bono legal services and works directly with the DC Office of Administrative Hearings and DC Court System to increase legal representation and support for low and moderate income pro-se litigants. In addition, the DC Bar runs a Pro Bono Center, which is an independent nonprofit that provides pro bono legal services to DC residents. The Center also trains attorneys and paralegals on the best methods for conducting pro bono legal work. DC also benefits from the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project, a non-profit organization that provides direct legal and advocacy assistance to domestic violence victims, at-risk children, and other vulnerable communities. 

In Maryland, the primary organization that offers pro bono and low-cost legal services is Maryland Legal Aid. This private, non-profit firm provides legal support in Baltimore and all 23 Maryland counties. Maryland Legal Aid handles civil cases only, including those related to custody, public benefits, consumer law, housing, and criminal record expungements, with an emphasis on aiding vulnerable populations including domestic violence victims, seniors, veterans, and nursing home and assisted living residents. In 1982, the Maryland General Assembly established the Maryland Legal Services Corporation to distribute funds from the Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts program for civil legal services programs for low-income residents. In addition, the Maryland Pro Bono Resource Center coordinates free civil legal assistance provided by volunteers, as part of the Maryland State Bar Association. In addition, the Resource Center provides training, support, and advocacy toolkits for legal professionals wishing to engage in pro bono work. Other organizations, like the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service, provide volunteer-based free civil legal services in complement to those provided by the Maryland State Bar Association. 

Similarly, Virginia also has several organizations supported by their state bar organization. The Legal Services Corporation of Virginia was established by the Virginia State Bar, Virginia Department of Social Services, and Virginia Legal Aid Association to fund and coordinate the delivery of civil legal services in Virginia. The Virginia State Bar also has a resource guide listing civil legal aid programs throughout the state, in addition to its pro bono division. Additionally, the Virginia Poverty Law Center maintains the VA Legal Aid organization, a platform that provides up-to-date information on poverty law issues for pro bono, legal aid, and other civil services attorneys, their clients, and advocates. 

In regard to bail aid, national organizations like the Bail Project collect donations and other contributions in an effort to provide bail assistance to low and moderate income individuals who may otherwise be detained pretrial. In the DMV, only two of the three jurisdictions use cash bail. In 1992, DC largely eliminated cash bail, and thus most defendants are released non-financially. Those who are detained for pretrial are instead detained due to meeting specific statutory requirements following a due process hearing or are considered to be too risky for release. However, in Maryland and Virginia, bail funds are a primary way for low-income defendants to receive bail. In Maryland, the Baltimore Legal Action Team and the Cecil Freedom Fund are two examples of nonprofit organizations that focus on gathering funds to post bail for low-income individuals. In addition, the state of Maryland has also created a Bail System Task Force in order to evaluate state judiciary practices and areas for improvement. Likewise, Virginia also has local community bail funds, including the Richmond Community Bail Fund, Blue Ridge Community Bail Fund, and the Tidewater Solidarity Bail Fund, which operates in Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Norfolk, Suffolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, and Newport News. In addition to collecting funds for posting bail for disadvantaged groups, many of these organizations also advocate for abolition for both cash bail and pretrial detainment in general.

Going forward, continuing to advocate for continued funding for civil legal services, pro bono legal services, and indigent defense is essential for maintaining services needed to provide low and moderate income individuals with the legal aid they need. But beyond this, there must be an expanded effort to eliminate economic barriers to legal aid in general to meet the need for low-cost or free assistance. Additionally, in an effort to reduce jail populations, communities can consider eliminating cash bail or expanding public funds to assist low income individuals with posting their bail to avoid pretrial detention. This, paired with continued advocacy for increased protections and rights of pretrial detainees, is an integral step to moving towards increased equity in the justice system. However, without addressing the existing structural discrimination within the system, inequalities will continue to persist for low income, minority, and disadvantaged communities.