Comparative and Longitudinal Study of Experiences with Court Systems

University Of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison WI

Investigators

Abstract

Representation in judicial proceedings is assumed to assist litigants, and shape the outcomes of cases. It may or may not; that assumption ignores the significance of the content of the law, of jurisdiction, and of what clients can do to build their claims. It assumes the effectiveness of the professional deployment of legal knowledge. We know very little about how those before the courts understand the assistance they get, or what difference it makes in outcomes. Since we do not understand when and where representation makes a difference in outcomes, we do not know a mechanism by which representation would shape legal proceedings and their outcomes. Observational studies that take the courts as sites for analysis cannot reveal outcomes over time nor can they assist in understanding what assistance or court proceedings mean to people, or how it matters in outcomes over time. This project will follow people brought before the courts in civil proceedings in two jurisdictions, each of which has different practices concerning provision of assistance. It thereby will link with broader analyses of how institutions ameliorate or contribute to inequalities experienced via public policy. Comparing those brought before the courts over time across different jurisdictions is an innovation in researching people's engagement with the legal system and outcomes. This project will build theory concerning the legal system in family problems, a significant encounter with the law for many people within the United States. it will contribute to understanding the mechanisms by which representation does or does not make a difference to claimants.