Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Divide topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legal‑aid experts on Talk Justice warn court digitization risks widening the 'digital divide'
Summary
On Talk Justice (sponsored by the Legal Services Corporation), legal‑aid and digital‑design experts discussed a geospatial dashboard mapping who lacks device access, and urged courts to adopt service‑design practices, informed‑consent procedures and privacy protections to avoid disenfranchising users.
Jason Taschey, host of the Legal Services Corporation–sponsored podcast Talk Justice, opened the episode by saying “Equal access to justice is a core American value” and asked guests to explain how court digitization can exclude people.
Catherine Altonator, consulting senior strategic advisor at the Self Represented Litigation Network, argued the gap is not merely device ownership but a cluster of barriers — connectivity, device suitability, affordability, software, digital skills and court processes. “If we imagined that all across our country courts built fences around their buildings … every person was personally responsible to bring a ladder in order to climb the fence,” she said, using that metaphor to show how design choices can shift burdens onto users.
Altonator described a geospatial “digital‑divide dashboard” her organization built with partners to translate FCC speed reports, the American Community Survey and National Telecommunications and Information Administration data into block‑level maps and easy‑to‑read metrics. She said the Florida template the team produced showed that certain rapid digitization proposals could, based on the underlying data, “disenfranchised nearly 3,000,000 people” if adopted without mitigations.
Leslie Powell Boudreaux, executive director of Veil Services of North Florida, described how legal‑aid programs have added online intake, guided navigation and virtual consultations but still rely on community partners — libraries, churches and trained volunteers — to help clients who cannot use remote systems unaided. She recounted client experiences in eviction and collections cases in which people lost access during hearings after phone data ran out or were not called when their case number changed, and said those practical failures can have lifelong consequences.
Sean McDonald, CEO and founder of Frontline SMS and a principal at Digital Public, framed the problem in design and political terms. “The people who design services are duty bearers,” he said, warning that poor design reduces who can participate and biases the development of legal interpretation and precedent. McDonald cautioned that coverage maps and device counts can be “squishy” metrics and urged courts and providers to consider usage patterns, comfort and outreach investments when budgeting digital services.
All three guests endorsed a service‑design approach that pairs quantitative mapping with on‑the‑ground supports. Altonator recommended courts adopt integrated informed‑consent procedures so users can choose how and under what conditions to appear; she also urged HIPAA‑like secure portals and active collaboration with community access points so parties are not prejudiced by tech failures.
Taschey closed by noting the guests had filed comments in multiple states and that show notes include links to the dashboard and cited data sources. The episode documents the technical sources used (FCC, American Community Survey, NTIA), examples of local workarounds (library training, corporate Lyft accounts for client transport) and the key recommendation that courts treat digital service design as an equity and procedural fairness issue.
The hosts directed listeners to the podcast show notes for links and further materials.
