MEETING THE NEEDS OF SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS:
A CONSUMER-BASED APPROACH

---

Table of Contents

Project Abstract
Program Narrative
I.      Project Objectives
II.     Program Areas to be Covered
III.    Need for the Project
IV.    Tasks, Methods and Evaluation

Task 1: Create a Design Protocol
Task 2: Assessment of Existing Processes
Task 3: Redesigning the System
Task 4: Develop an Internet-Based Prototype
Task 5: Prepare Products
Task 6: Disseminate Products and Lessons
Task 7: Project Management

V.    Applicant Status
VI.   Staff Capability

---

Project Abstract

Civil justice reform in the United States has failed to address the problems that self-represented litigants experience in their efforts to obtain access to the justice system.  Although the great majority of cases filed by self-represented litigants are factually and legally uncomplicated, many of these litigants struggle to navigate through a procedurally complex court system that is unfamiliar to most lay persons, that employs difficult, even arcane, terminology, and that imposes highly technical requirements for pleadings, motions and evidentiary proofs.  To date, little effort has been spent trying to simplify the court process itself so that self-represented litigants are able to navigate through the courts without undertaking a crash course in civil procedure.

To address this major shortcoming, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) proposes a partnership with the Illinois Institute of Technology's Institute of Design and the Chicago-Kent College of Law to examine court processes and recommend modifications to eliminate or reduce procedural barriers to access for self-represented litigants.  This unique partnership brings together the extensive expertise of the NCSC in court management, the distinguished expertise of the Institute of Design in human-centered systems design, and the nationally renowned expertise of the Chicago-Kent College of Law in the use of technology in the justice system.

The project has three major objectives.  First, it will identify the major barriers to access to justice that self-represented litigants encounter due to court procedures and administrative requirements.  Second, it will employ the latest in system design methodology to redesign court processes to remove these barriers and provide self-represented litigants with efficient and effective access to the justice system.  Finally, the project will translate the conceptual model for the redesigned court system into an Internet-based prototype for implementation in the courts.  To provide expert guidance, particularly with respect to the redesign of the court systems, a 10-person Advisory Committee will review and make comments on the project recommendations.  In addition, the project will benefit from the input of Mr. Richard Zorza, particularly with respect to the development of the Internet-based prototype.

Information about the project will be publicized through a Institute for Court Management (ICM) course offered in a distance-learning format, through information posted on the Justice Web Collaboratory (a joint website of the NCSC and the Chicago-Kent College of Law) and through a series of news releases and brief articles in court-focused periodicals.  Following completion of the project, the NCSC will seek the cooperation of courts in implementing the redesigned court system on a pilot basis for evaluation and adaptation to local needs.

The total budget for this project is $686,368 and will be funded by the State Justice Institute ($150,000), the Open Society Institute ($150,000), the Center for Access to the Courts Through Technology ($189,879), and matching funds from the Illinois Institute of Technology ($196,489).

Program Narrative

I.          Project Objectives

Civil justice reform in the United States has failed to address the problems that self-represented litigants experience in their efforts to obtain access to the justice system.  Many – indeed the great majority – of cases filed by self-represented litigants are relatively uncomplicated, both factually and legally.  However, many of these litigants struggle to navigate through a procedurally complex court system that is unfamiliar to most lay persons, that employs difficult, even arcane, terminology, and often imposes highly technical requirements for pleadings, motions and evidentiary proofs.

Traditional court-based pro se assistance programs have generally pursued two objectives – to simplify court terminology and standardize court forms, and to provide self-represented litigants with basic information about how to maneuver through the court system in manner of a law-trained professional.  Little effort has been spent trying to simplify the court process itself so that self-represented litigants are able to navigate through the courts without undertaking a crash course in civil procedure.

The National Center for State Courts, in partnership with the Illinois Institute of Technology's Institute of Design and the Chicago-Kent College of Law, proposes to employ structured planning methodology to examine court processes and recommend modifications to eliminate or reduce procedural barriers to access for self-represented litigants.  This partnership brings together the unique expertise of the NCSC in court management with the talents of one of America’s most technologically sophisticated law schools and the leading doctoral program in systems design. 

The project has three major objectives.  First, it will identify the major barriers to access to justice that self-represented litigants encounter due to court procedures and administrative requirements.  Second, it will employ the latest in system design methodology to redesign court processes to remove these barriers and provide self-represented litigants with efficient and effective access to the justice system.  Finally, the project will translate the conceptual model for the redesigned court system into a Internet-based prototype for implementation in the courts.  Information about the project will be publicized through a Institute for Court Management (ICM) course offered in a distance-learning format, through information posted on the Justice Web Collaboratory (a joint website of the NCSC and the Chicago-Kent College of Law) and through a series of news releases and brief articles in court-focused periodicals.  Following completion of the project, the NCSC will seek the cooperation of courts in implementing the redesigned court system on a pilot basis for evaluation and adaptation to local needs.

II.                Program Areas to be Covered

The proposed project addresses Special Interest Category II.B.2.a(3) "Self-Represented Litigants Appearing in Court."  The project flows directly from concepts discussed at the National Conference on Pro Se Litigation in November 1999, which was hosted by the American Judicature Society and funded by grants from the State Justice Institute, the Open Society Institute, and the ABA Standing Committee on Delivery of Legal Services.  It also addresses Special Interest Categories II.B.2a(2) "Technological Approaches to Enhance Public Access"; II.B.2.b(1)(a) "Innovative Distance Learning Approaches"; II.B.2.b(1)(c) "Curriculum on Special Interest Category Issues"; and II.B.2.d "Evaluate Technologies to Re-engineer the Way Courts Currently Do Business."

III. Need for the Project

Perhaps the most fundamental criticism Americans make of the civil courts is that they are not affordable. In the NCSC's 1999 national public opinion survey 68 percent of the public said that it is not affordable to bring a case to court. Eighty-seven percent said that obtaining legal representation contributes "a lot" to the cost of going to court. A majority of survey respondents also believed that the complexity of the law contributes "a lot" to the cost of going to court.[1]

Increasing Number of Pro Se Cases

The most visible consequence of unaffordability is the growth in the number of self-represented litigants appearing in state courts, especially, but not exclusively, in limited jurisdiction courts and domestic relations cases.[2] In the mid-1990s at least one party was self-represented in more than two-thirds of domestic relations cases in California and in nearly 90 percent of divorce cases in Phoenix, Arizona and Washington, DC.[3] In her remarks at the National Conference on Pro Se Litigation, Scottsdale, Arizona (Nov. 18-21, 1999), Justice Barbara Pariente of the Florida Supreme Court reported that half of the cases filed in family court are entirely pro se, and over 80% have at least one pro se litigant. The implications of these increases for judges and court staff go far beyond the simple need for additional staff and resources to manage these cases. Most courts report that pro se cases require a disproportionate amount of time and court resources because many litigants are unprepared or have inaccurate or incomplete information about how to proceed.

Perceived Inaccessibility

The volume of legal problems that are not being brought to the civil justice system is a measure of the public's perception of the inaccessibility of existing civil processes. A majority of Americans report legal problems that they did not seek to resolve through the public court system, typically because of a fear of the costs involved or a view that "the justice system would not help."[4] The consequences of a lack of access are particularly acute for the poor because their legal needs relate to the essentials of life: "shelter, minimum levels of income and entitlements, unemployment compensation, disability allowances, child support, education, matrimonial relief and health care."[5] Judges, court managers, and others attending the National Conference on Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System ranked re-thinking the role of lawyers as the second highest priority for national action.

Public Expectations

There is more to the story than excessive legal costs.  The public now has experience and confidence in transacting business directly with large and complex organizations like banks and stockbrokers.  The role of the middleman is shrinking.  Public expectations of easy and direct access in non-court contexts will inevitably affect the state courts. Already the majority of Americans believe that they can represent themselves in court if they want to.[6]

Failure of Traditional Responses

            Civil justice reform in the United States has failed to address the problems that self-represented litigants experience and create for judges and court staff.  The traditional reform mechanism has been to give judges greater control over the legal process by imposing case management rules on attorneys.  Such reforms sidestep the needs of self-represented litigants.  Moreover, traditional court reforms may actually exacerbate the problems of self-represented litigants by making the legal process more complex, and thus less easily navigated by litigants without lawyers.

Assistance programs are the traditional way of providing relief to pro se litigants.  Such programs are only marginally successful in making self-represented litigants effective consumers of court services.  Self-represented litigants will always be second-class participants in traditional court processes because of the legal complexity of those processes.  Provision of assistance, whether delivered in the form of simplified court forms and instructions or through self-help centers, cannot place a pro se litigant on an equal footing with litigants with legal representation.  And, often, pro se assistance programs do not satisfy the sense of entitlement to act as one’s own attorney that motivates many self-represented litigants.

In addition, pro se assistance programs often highlight the ethical dilemmas that arise in traditional court processes when one party to a dispute has a lawyer and the other party does not.  The two parties are inherently unevenly matched.  To place the parties on a more equal footing the court seeks to aid the self-represented litigant.  No ethical rule can provide a judge a clear answer to the question “just how far can one go without compromising oneself or the court process?”[7]

Our analysis, as summarized above, leads us to propose a partnership and a two-pronged strategy to better meet the needs of self-represented litigants.  This project brings together the respective expertise of the National Center for State Courts in court management, of the Illinois Institute of Technology's Institute of Design in systems design, and of the Chicago-Kent College of Law in computer and Internet technology.  Together, they will reduce the complexity of court processes through a systemic, human-centered design process that works from the ground up.  The design process is sensitive to the cultural, language, educational background, and computer literacy of people who choose or need to represent themselves in court.[8]  The design process generates and develops concepts that are:  "different—freshly imagined to match the best of new technology to emerging needs and interests, better—thoroughly and systematically thought through for all users, and right—sensitively positioned to meet environmental, personal, social and cultural needs."[9]  The new processes will also be designed in a way that maximizes equitable and fair treatment of all litigants.

Second, the proposed project will harness the power of the Internet to create "portals" to the civil justice system providing consumer-friendly computerized assistance to potential self-represented litigants.  The two strategies come together to create a web-based prototype of a consumer-based dispute resolution process.

IV.       Tasks, Methods and Evaluation

This project is proposed as a partnership of the NCSC with the IIT's Institute of Design and Chicago-Kent College of Law.  Financial support for this project is being sought from four distinct funding agencies – the State Justice Institute, the Open Society Institute, the Center for Access to the Courts Through Technology, and matching funds by the Illinois Institute of Technology.  To convey an understanding of the full scope of the project, this section describes all of the tasks, methods and staffing without regard for which funding organizations will support specific project tasks or products.  Table 1 illustrates the Tasks and time frames for this project.

Evaluation for this project will be performed by a 10-person Advisory Committee composed of judges, court staff, representatives of court organizations active in the area of improving access for self-represented litigants, and experts in this area.

Table 1

Tasks	Months
Task 1:  Create a Design Protocol	1
Task 2:  Assess Existing Processes	1-4
Task 3:  Redesign the System	5-10
Task 4:  Develop a Web-based Prototype	11-16
Task 5:  Prepare Products	11-18
Task 6:  Disseminate Products and Lessons	11-18
Task 7:  Project Management	1-18

Task 1: Create a Design Protocol.  In September, 2000, the project leaders from the NCSC, the Chicago-Kent College of Law, and the Institute of Design will finalize the selection of participating court sites, develop the methodology and protocols for data collection, and determine the nature and scope of data to be collected at each site.

The selection of courts to participate as project sites will take into consideration the substantive area of cases (e.g., domestic relations, small claims, landlord/tenant), the proportion of self-represented litigants in those cases, the geographic and demographic diversity of the community, the ease of data collection in the court, and the interest and ability of the selected courts to serve as pilot courts for the redesigned processes after completion of the project.  Project staff will consult with the State Justice Institute, the Open Society Institute, the Center for Access to the Courts Through Technology and Legal Services Corporation for information concerning courts that have already received funding for pro se projects to determine compatibility with this proposal. 

A number of state administrative offices have expressed interest in hosting one or more sites including Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, New York, and West Virginia.  In addition, several local courts have indicated their specific interest in participating as a project site.  These include the Colorado Twentieth Judicial District Court [Boulder, CO], the Denver [CO] Probate Court, the Delaware Family Court [Wilmington, DE], the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit [Lake County, IL], the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Michigan, Family Division [Flint, MI], the Hennepin County [MN] District Court, the Second Judicial District Court, Family Division [Reno, NV], the Nassau County [NY] District Court, and the King County [WA] Superior Court.  Letters of interest and support from these sites are attached at Appendix C or will be forwarded under separate cover.

Task 2: Assessment of Existing Processes.  In Task 2, the Chicago-Kent College of Law will conduct a one-semester Interprofessional Project (IPRO)[10] in which graduate law and design students will examine how self-represented litigants function in 6 project sites.  The class will be offered to 20 graduate-level students, 10 of which will be law students and 10 of which will be design students.  The work of the IPRO students will be conducted under the supervision of Prof. Ronald Staudt and in cooperation with NCSC staff.  This unique collaboration of graduate law and design students, guided with expertise from NCSC project staff, will bring a fresh perspective in its examination of court process.  The students will seek to synthesize information about the barriers to access for self-represented litigants in light of existing pro se assistance programs and how existing technology affects such access.  Using this information, the students will identify the major design issues for the project, a task that is the first stage of the structured design process (described in greater detail in Task 3).  Data collection efforts may include examination of case files, observation of interactions by self-represented litigants with court personnel, and interviews with judges and court staff.  Working in collaboration with NCSC project staff, the IPRO students will develop short articles, briefing papers, and graphical illustrations of their findings for publication through the Justice Web Collaboratory (see Tasks 5 and 6).  To encourage continuity of work from Task 2 through Tasks 3 and 4, the project will support 2 design fellowships in the amount of $22,000 to subsidize 2 design students to enroll in both Illinois Institute of Technology classes dedicated to this project.  The project will also provide 5 law fellowships in the amount of $12,150 to subsidize 5 law students to enroll in both the IPRO and the Systems and Systematic Design class (see Task 3).  The Advisory Committee will be given copies of all products developed under this task prior to publication.

Task 3: Redesigning the System.  The research conducted in Task 2 will serve as the groundwork for the Systems and Systematic Design class that will be offered by the Institute of Design in the Spring 2001 semester.  In this class, Prof. Charles Owen teaches structured planning methodology, a highly structured methodology and computer-aided analysis developed by Prof. Owen to examine systems and answer critical questions about how those systems should be designed to most effectively meet system objectives.[11]  NCSC project staff and an Advisory Committee will provide oversight and guidance to the students as they conduct their research. 

The structured planning process takes into consideration user needs including the cultural, psychological, and educational factors that affect them.  The Institute of Design is the premier institute in “human-centered” systems design and thus is key to redesigning court processes to be responsive to the needs of the litigants and other people who use them.  Structured planning also recognizes key relationships among system functions, organizes large amount of information optimally for concept development, and develops solutions appropriate to the real (and natural) complexity of problems.[12]  Each of the stages of the structured planning process is characterized by key questions to be answered before progressing to the next stage.  (See "Structured Planning Process at a Glance" at Appendix D).  The stages of the structured planning process include:

·        Project Definition, in which a project team of law and design students investigates the issues identified in Task 2, develops possible design solutions, and through discussion and follow-up research, converges on the solutions that optimize project objectives – in this case, improving access to justice for self-represented litigants.[13]  Key questions of this stage are: What are the key issues of the project?  What does it not address?  What position does the team take on issues relevant to the project?

·        Action Analysis, in which the project team undertakes a detailed examination of court functions as they relate to the project.  This stage incorporates the needs of ALL users of the court system (e.g., litigants, judges, court staff, and the organizations, agencies and individuals associated with key court functions) [14]and takes into account the cultural, psychological, and educational factors that affect their various roles and functions within the court.  Key questions of this stage include: What happens within this system?  What should happen within this system?  Think about all the users of the system – what should they do?  In this stage, IIT students will revisit the participating sites to gather more focused information to be used in the redesign process.  Their field work will be supervised by Prof. Owen and NCSC project staff.

·        Structuring, in which the project team reorganizes the system functions according to their potential to use components of the developing system in common.[15]  Key questions associated with this stage are: What design opportunities or problems do you see in the functions of this system?  What are the design insights?  What are specific solutions that use these insights?  What is each solution, and what does it do?  Which are related functions of the system?  Which complement one another and which obstruct one another?

·        Synthesis, in which the project team evaluates the solutions developed in the previous stage to determine that the proffered solutions fulfill the functional objectives of the project as defined in the first stage and the redesigned system performs all the necessary functions.[16]  Key questions for this stage are: Which functions should we look at together to create systemic solutions? To what ends?  Are the clustered functions a means to these ends?  What means would meet this end?  Do the system elements fulfill all functions?  Can we identify any more relationships between system elements?

·        Communication of the redesigned system, in which the project team drafts a summary of its research and recommendations.  The report would include an overview of the project, a description of the system elements (users, functions), explanation of the procedural and organizational bases for the redesigned system, and detailed description of the proposed system with explanations of how its elements fulfill the system objectives.  Key questions for this stage include: What is the system plan?  What are the elements of the system?  How did we get there?

Task 4: Develop an Internet-Based Prototype.  Based on the redesigned system developed in Task 3, Prof. Eli Blevis-Bal of the Institute of Design will develop an Internet-based prototype to illustrate for courts how the new system would function after implementation.  He will be assisted by 2 design students who will be funded through the design fellowships (discussed in Task 2, above) and a student programmer who will be paid on a contract basis.  The prototype will include the system specifications necessary for courts to adapt and implement the prototype through their own MIS systems.  James McMillan of the NCSC Technology Division and project consultant Richard Zorza will provide technical assistance to Prof. Blevis-Bal so that he is fully informed about the technological capabilities of courts and frameworks of existing Internet-based pro se access programs.  This task will be completed in the summer and fall of 2001.

Task 5: Prepare Products.  Each of the preceding tasks will result in one or more products.  Task 2 will produce several student-developed articles, briefing papers, and graphical illustrations that describe how self-represented litigants perform in existing court processes and that identify the major issues that impede their access to justice.  These products will be disseminated to the courts community and the public through the Justice Web Collaboratory.

Task 3 will produce the model for the redesigned court processes.  That model will be summarized in the report of the Systems and Systematic Design class, which will include an Overview of the project, a description of the system elements (users, functions), an explanation of the procedural and organizational bases for the redesigned system, and detailed description of the proposed system with explanations of how its elements fulfill the system objectives.  The Systems and Systematic Design students will present their work, including a draft of the report, to the project Advisory Committee for review and comment.  The final report will be made publicly available through the Justice Web Collaboratory and will form the basis for the ICM curriculum materials and several articles to be published in court-focused periodicals.

Task 4 will produce the Internet-based prototype and specifications for the redesigned system.  The prototype will illustrate for courts how Internet technology could be used to implement and enhance the redesigned system.  Staff from the NCSC Technology Division will have familiarity with the prototype and will be able to assist courts in its implementation.  The prototype will also be made available through the Justice Web Collaboratory.

Based on each of these products, the NCSC will prepare products targeted at discrete audiences within the court community.  These products are outlined in the Subtasks A, B, and C, below.  These subtasks will be completed by December 2001.

Subtask A: Develop ICM Curriculum and Materials.  Based on the materials developed in Tasks 2 and 3, the Institute for Court Management (ICM) will prepare a curriculum on Redesigning Court Processes to Improve Access for Self-Represented Litigants to be offered in a distance-learning format.  This subtask encompasses development of the curriculum, preparation of course materials, and faculty selection.  Course delivery and evaluation will be conducted using tuition paid by course attendees.

Subtask B: Disseminate Project Materials through the Justice Web Collaboratory. The Justice Web Collaboratory is a working partnership formed by Chicago-Kent College of Law and the National Center for State Courts to use the tools of the World Wide Web to create a laboratory for collaboration aimed exclusively at U.S. judges and their close support organizations.  Under this subtask, NCSC and Chicago-Kent project staff will develop and adapt materials about the project for dissemination through the Justice Web Collaboratory to judges, court staff, court-based organizations and the public. These materials may include descriptions of the project methodology, research findings, recommendations, and prototype.

Subtask C: Publicize the Project Findings to the Courts Community.  To publicize the project and encourage implementation of the redesigned process and Internet-based prototype, the NCSC will prepare short articles and news releases for court-focused periodicals such as the NCSC Technology Bulletin, Court Review, Judges' Journal, Judicature, Court Manager, and the Justice System Journal.

Task 6: Disseminate Products and Lessons.  In Task 6, NCSC staff will disseminate the products and lessons developed in Task 5.  This task will be completed by February, 2002.

Task 7: Project Management.  Project management overlays all other project stages and tasks.  It includes the administration and coordination of all efforts by the NCSC, the IIT Institute of Design and the Chicago-Kent College of Law.

V.        Applicant Status

The NCSC has received SJI grants within the past two years and therefore need not restate its clear priority for funding under the State Justice Act and its regulations (Guideline, VII.C.7.).

VI.       Staff Capability

The project will be located in the Research Division of the National Center for State Courts.  Dr. Victor E. Flango, Ph.D., NCSC Vice President for Research, will provide overall guidance as part of his general administrative responsibilities at no cost to the project.  The Project Director will be Paula L. Hannaford, J.D.  In this capacity, Ms. Hannaford will ensure that project tasks are completed on time, within budget, and at the highest standards of performance and quality.  Project staff from the NCSC will include David Rottman, Thomas Cohen, James McMillan, Marcia Koslov, and Linda Walker.  Richard Zorza will serve as a project consultant providing technical assistance.

Paula Hannaford, an attorney and Senior Research Associate with the NCSC since 1993, has managed and contributed extensively to several SJI-funded projects including "Innovations in Jury Trial Procedures" (SJI-93-263), "Should Jurors Discuss the Evidence Prior to Deliberations" (SJI-96-181), and "A National Study and Action Plan on Attorney Conduct and Professionalism" (SJI-97-N-243).  Her areas of expertise include jury system management and jury trial procedures; complex litigation and mass tort litigation; probate and guardianship; and legal and judicial ethics and discipline.

David Rottman, a sociologist, currently directs the Evaluation of the Midtown Community Court Project, originally funded by the SJI and NIJ and currently funded by the NIJ.  In addition, as the former director of the NCSC Court Statistics Project and the director of projects that generated three editions of State Court Organizations, he brings to the project a broad national perspective on court organization.  Dr. Rottman has extensive experience in survey design and served as project director for two recent national surveys of opinions on the courts (one funded by the Hearst Foundation and the other by NIJ).  He has also conducted fieldwork, most recently in the nine county comparative study of Trial Court Structure and Performance (funded by SJI) and in the Community-Focused Courts Development Initiative (funded by BJA).  He also was one of the original staff members of the Trial Court Performance Standards Project.

Thomas H. Cohen is a court research associate with the National Center for State Courts.  Mr. Cohen contributed significantly to the National Center’s project that examined how punitive policies were impacting on the state courts.  This project involved analyzing a national database on disposed felony cases and writing a report detailing the findings from that analysis.  In addition, Mr. Cohen has contributed to the civil and appellate sections of the Court Statistics Project.

Marcia Koslov is the Director of Knowledge Management for the National Center for State Courts and co-coordinator with Todd Pedwell of the Chicago-Kent College of Law and the Justice Web Collaboratory.  Linda L. Walker is a Technology Specialist in the NCSC Knowledge Management Division and has primary responsibility for the Technology Information Service (TIS).  In this capacity Ms. Walker is spearheading the effort to transition the Technology Information Service into a predominately electronic service on the Internet.  Ms. Walker is the author of the “Projects in Progress” column for the Court Technology Bulletin and participates in various other technology-related projects in Court Technology Programs.

James E. McMillan is the Director of the Court Technology Laboratory and assists with the Courtroom 21 project in conjunction with the William and Mary School of Law.  In addition, Mr. McMillan has directed the Court Technology Performance Standards Project, serves as senior faculty for the Institute for Court Management, and has provided technical assistance for numerous trial and appellate courts including the United States Supreme Court and several state supreme courts.

Richard Zorza is an independent consultant, author and lecturer who specializes in the technological and ethical aspects of pro se assistance programs.  Mr. Zorza has been a key consultant to several SJI-funded programs in this area.

Project staff from the Institute of Design are Professors Charles L. Owen and Eli Blevins.  Professor Owen has worked in the fields of product design, design planning, computer-supported design and design methodology-founding, and then directing ID’s multi-million dollar Design Processes Laboratory for 14 years, publishing the Design Processes Newsletter for 10 years, and teaching, conducting research, and consulting.  He serves on the advisory boards of several design journals.  His current research is directed toward metaplanning, structured planning techniques, and the development of design-support systems employing computer-assisted processes.

Professor Blevis-Bal’s primary interest is the interaction between design and computing.  He holds a Ph.D. in computing and information sciences from Queen’s University at Kingston, Canada where his dissertation research concerned creative reasoning processes and the design of interactive creative reasoning systems.  Prior to joining the faculty assistant professor at the Institute for the Learning Sciences (ILS) at Northwestern University.  At ILS, he worked on social simulations that involved believable interactive characters and curriculum development tools.  He has designed, advised on, and implemented numerous software and technology solutions, including web-based technologies.

Project staff from the Chicago-Kent College of Law are Professor Ronald Staudt and Edward (Todd) Pedwell.  Prof. Staudt is a professor of law and associate vice president for law, business and technology at Chicago-Kent College of Law.  He is the author of a hypertext casebook in computer law-a course he teaches using only computer based materials.  Prof. Staudt is also co-author, with James I. Keane, of the book Litigation Support System:  An Attorney's Guide (2nd ed. 1992).  He has published numerous articles about the use of computers in law.  He is a past president of the Center for Computer Assisted Legal Instruction.  He teaches computer law, Internet law and copyright law.  During 1994-1998, Prof. Staudt was on leave from the law school at which time he served as vice president of LEXIS Publishing.

Mr. Pedwell is the current manager of the Justice Web Collaboratory and is responsible for building an environment that will help bring judges together on the Internet to explore collaboration opportunities.  Before joining Chicago-Kent College of Law, he was the Network Administrator for Touro Law Center and was responsible for migrating from Novell to NT.  In addition, he organized one of the first legal webcasting events that examined the legal issues of broadcasting on the Internet.  He is also the current Director of Information and Technology for the International Office of the International Law Students Association.

Chicago-Kent College of Law founded its Center for Law and Computers in 1983, featuring innovative programs that use the Internet and new information technologies to educate and to advance justice through, for example, “The Virtual Magistrate”, a seminal alternative dispute resolution tool. Chicago-Kent students staff the Circuit Court of Cook County Assistance Desk.