Legal Design for Language Access; a Reality!?
Early this year while I was in the middle of a life-changing Stanford Graduate School of Business entrepreneurial boot camp in Botswana, I received a message:
“Start packing, we are going to Stanford,” my husband was admitted to the John S. Knight Journalism Fellowship at Stanford and we were all excited. As an affiliate with expertise in labor law, I took interest in legal design and that’s when I explored classes at the Hasso Plattner School of Design, Stanford’s d.school.
My interaction with design thinking concepts at the time was limited to articles and Margaret Hagan’s (Director of the Legal Design Lab) Law by Design book that had gotten me very curious.
Even though I understood what legal design was all about, I did not have the tools to deal with core issues at the heart of my challenges. As a labor law consultant, I was hamstrung and couldn’t address the challenges and frustrations that my clients have been experiencing for years. These are people who complain about cases that drag at the tribunal courts and could not afford legal representation. Ok! Enough on social injustice issues before I derail. So, what did I learn from this hands-on class?
We began our legal design journey with a refreshing sprint on the basic steps of design thinking. One big takeaway from this sprint was the emphasis on “spontaneity”.
“Iterate.Iterate.Iterate” that’s what the d.school model is all about.
At first I relied on organic methods to deal with the needs of the workers back in Botswana. This did not yield sufficient impact. The legal design process at the d. school has taught me to bring a strong focus on human-centered design as a problem-solving process learning how to take the design process from abstract descriptions to real application in a wicked, fast-moving project . And most importantly, to be visual.
One of the most interesting to-do’s of the course plan was to immerse ourselves into the assigned spaces using the design research methods we have explored. The question at the center of our team challenges was;
“How can we use design methods to create new technology plans & policies in government services?”
So here I was catching a ride for a first-time visit at one of the California Courthouses where we were doing legal design research. I was going to immerse into a self-help court experience.
I engaged in a conversation with the woman who was sitting next to me who explained how she has been separated from her child and could not afford a lawyer. “The cases drag because I cannot speak English well,” she said.
This casual conversation turned into an exciting opportunity to tell her about my studies and ask her more questions about her experiences.
I have always known that the legal system is flawed. As a labor law consultant, it has always been difficult to assist clients in my native Setswana language because the laws are not designed to be user-friendly for lay people. The first thing you see when you enter the court grounds is English instructions. The language barrier alienates majority of uneducated community.
When I began my “immersion journey” a feeling I always adopt when I enter any courthouse. I often revert to my clients’ experience and use this observation method to try to understand the problem.
I spent time with the stakeholders asking questions to understand the users and the scope of the design challenge. It’s interesting that some users came to where my colleagues were gathering hoping to get assistance since they did not know where to go. This interaction got us closer to the user and helped us gather critical feedback .
A lady in mid-30 enters the lobby, she has been referred from the Police Station to come file for a restraining order. She’s not a native English speaker so she struggles to explain what she’s looking for. In a divorce workshop which takes about 45 minutes in the other room, around fifteen lay people (majority are women) sit watching a powerpoint presentation with audio that is in English.
While I’m sitting there in awkward silence I realize that I have not understood anything from a dull presentation with no graphics or moving pictures. Actually, this is how the legal system has been designed; dull, boring and impenetrable. Legal professionals believe that they need to practice what is written in black and white making the whole system rigid even to challenge it if you are a layperson.
The truth is,courts might order expensive software’s or tablets only to find out that the clients are looking for a cheaper solution. The point is, courthouses should be asking the questions “What is it like to be served by us? What can we do to make that experience better in every way?” Once those questions are asked and answered, the courts will cease being old-fashioned about their service models. They’ll start acting as they care. And clients will notice.
Legal Design is about recognizing that you are not your user. It is about adopting an open-minded attitude of curiosity and exploration, setting aside assumptions, rolling up one’s sleeves, and talking to real people. And this does not require weeks of time. Even five to six 45-minute interviews and observations can yield immensely valuable findings and insights.
Legal Design is not quantitative research. It is not market research. It is not evaluation. It is not about amassing vast amounts of quantitative data to arrive at statistically validated answers. It is about developing nuanced insights and understandings through direct interactions and observations with people, and then arriving at breakthrough, new ideas.
“Less Planning, more Making”
