Fulcrum Point of Equal Access to Justice: Legal and Nonlegal Institutions of Remedy

"Equal access to justice" would mean that different groups in a society would have similar chances of obtaining similar resolutions to similar kinds of civil justice problems. If people had equal access to justice, a society's institutions of remedy would work to equalize how they handled their civil justice problems and to ensure that similar problems were resolved similarly, even when different kinds of people-whether rich or poor, men or women, of any race or ethnicity--experienced them. When justice scholars and practicing attorneys address the problem of equalizing access to civil justice, they often begin by thinking about expanding access to law. But, when members of the public confront problems that raise issues in civil law, they do not share the same law-centric perspective of these attorneys and academics. In the United States and other developed nations, most civil justice problems are never taken to law. When one examines how people actually handle their civil justice problems, one observes both a widespread resignation to these problems and an enormous variety of attempted remedies, a minority of which involve the explicit use of law. A comparative analysis of the design and function of both legal and nonlegal institutions of remedy for civil justice problems reveals potential solutions to the problem of equalizing access to justice in an unequal society. By stepping back from law, we can expand and equalize access to substantive justice by selectively redesigning institutions of remedy so that they are remedial and give members of unequal groups more common and more equal experiences with their justice problems. This innovative approach relies on and bolsters the notion that access to justice is for everyone.