Public trust and confidence in the American legal system is too low, as evidenced by studies and polling done over the last several decades. A new report by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System reveals insights into how the public views court systems and processes, judges and the judiciary, and information about the legal system. Texas Lawyer spoke recently with Logan Cornett, director of research at IAALS, and Natalie Anne Knowlton, director of special projects at IAALS, about their research.

Why is this an important study?

Cornett: We see survey and poll results on this topic come out really frequently. What those kinds of studies aren't able to do, however, is delve deeply into people's perspectives. They don't provide the full picture of how people view the courts and the justice system. In contrast, our qualitative approach allowed us to engage in in-depth, one-on-one interviews with members of the public. Through those conversations, we developed a more thorough understanding of public perspectives.

Knowlton: And I would build on that by stepping back and highlighting how critical this issue is. In the most recent NCSC State of State Courts public opinion poll, only 65% of respondents expressed confidence in state courts (which is where most people in this country will have experience with our legal system). I find it to be unacceptable that more than one-third of respondents do not have confidence in our system. Exploring this issue, then, from different perspectives, is imperative if system stakeholders are going to develop actionable, meaningful solutions to earning and maintaining the public's trust.

Who is the survey aimed at?

Cornett: We conducted interviews with a diverse group of members of the public. The report is aimed at courts and policymakers. Our intention is to provide information that can help the legal community understand how the public views the courts and the legal system, and what can be done to increase levels of trust and confidence.

What was the most interesting thing you discovered?

Cornett: I think the most interesting thing we discovered is that the general public is savvier than what many in the legal community assume. They understand concepts related to rule of law, they have a good grasp on judicial ethical expectations, and they are acutely aware of the fact that depictions of the legal system in popular media are exaggerated and highly dramatized.

Knowlton: One of the more interesting issues that arises from this study is the impact that cognitive biases and mental heuristics have on public perceptions of the legal system. For example, one of our participants expressed a default to not trusting judges in her community if and until she has explicit reason to trust them; another participant expressed a default to trusting community judges if and until she is given a reason not to. Or this example: a participant hears something negative about one judge and applies that perception to judges as a group.

The field of behavioral economics is, in my opinion, wildly underutilized in the legal and court communities, and pieces of this research highlight an opportunity to more deeply understand public trust and confidence by better understanding how humans think and act, and why.

Did the survey answer the question of why public trust and confidence in the American legal system has become too low, and if so, what did it find out?

Cornett: I can't say that we have a complete, definitive answer as to why levels of public trust and confidence are low. However, our interviews point to issues related to bias—political and racial bias came up over and over. People also believe that those with more money get better legal outcomes.

Knowlton: Many studies have shown that outcomes are impacted when people who do not have a lawyer (often because they cannot afford one) must navigate a legal system designed for use by lawyers. The perceptions, then, that came out of our study regarding socioeconomic bias in the system do square with the reality we see in the system broadly.

What did the survey reveal about the following:

• Views on the value courts provide, what a well-functioning court system would look like, and concerns about the courts;

Cornett: People view courts as a mechanism for maintaining order and stability in our society. They view a well-functioning court system as one that is fair, impartial, just, transparent, efficient, and consistent. People's concerns about the courts revolve around the ideas that more money translates to better legal outcomes and that bias, particularly political and racial bias, plays a role in decision-making.

Knowlton: I'd also direct your attention to another study we conducted on this issue—a survey of attorney members of the American Board of Trial Advocates. You can find that here: https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/ptc_abota_survey_voir_dire_fallwinter2019.pdf. You'll see among those findings that attorneys, too, perceive bias in judicial decision-making.

• Perceptions about levels of trust in judges and how judges should ideally behave; and

Cornett: Most people said they trusted judges. For people who didn't trust judges, perceptions about political bias was the most common reason. When we asked people what they would need to know about judges that would increase trust, people expressed a desire for more information about the judges—for instance, information about their decision-making history and personal background. In terms of ideal behavior, people want judges who are fair and unbiased, professional, ethical; some thought judges should be held to a higher standard than members of the general public.

• Perspectives on knowledge of the process, how the media depicts the legal system, and the public's desire for information about the legal system.

Cornett: Most people had at least a basic understanding of the civil legal process. We screened out lawyers and others with professional legal experience, so we didn't expect that people would have in-depth knowledge of the process. Virtually all our interviewees understood that television and movies present a distorted view of the legal system. Specifically, interviewees understood these depictions are highly dramatized, unrealistically conflict-filled and emotional, and temporally compressed. Most interviewees expressed a desire for more information about the legal system. They were most interested in information about the legal process, but were also interested in information related to decision-making, specific cases, statistics, legal terminology, jury selection, and judicial selection.

Based on the survey results, what changes in policies were recommended?

Cornett: Our recommendations fell into two basic categories. First, we urge courts to address both perceptions and the realities when it comes to bias. We didn't recommend specific action here, but our research clearly converges with the current societal climate in terms of pervasive bias issues. Likely, there are a great many things that need to be done to unravel and resolve bias issues in the courts. Our second category of recommendations is all about transparency. We recommend that judges increase their visibility in their communities by creating opportunities for interaction between themselves and members of the public. The idea here being that positive interactions with judges would help improve public attitudes. We also recommend that courts increase transparency of the information they provide on their websites. Court websites are, in general, cumbersome to navigate, text-heavy, and not user-friendly. We outline a set of principles, drawn from Stanford's A Better Legal Internet project, to increase navigability, accessibility, and visibility of content on court websites and other sites that provide legal information to the public.

In conclusion, what else did your research reveal?

Cornett: The legal community tends to assume that the general public is largely ignorant when it comes to information about the legal system. Our research demonstrates that this isn't the whole story. People know more than we give them credit for. And where there is room for increased public knowledge, the onus is on the courts and legal professionals to proactively provide that information in a way that is easily understandable and accessible, and that adheres to best practices for presenting complex information to a lay audience.

Knowlton: I see a tendency with many legal system insiders to blame low levels of public trust and confidence on the public's lack of understanding of how the system functions. This is dangerous.

At the root of this knee-jerk reaction, I think, is a conceptual disconnect between how the justice system should work and how it actually works in practice. Countless studies, qualitative and quantitative, show systemic bias in our justice system. And we know that the 75% or so of people in state courts who must navigate the system without a lawyer are disadvantaged compared to those that do. So while we insiders can point to a need for more civics education and highlight here and there ways in which the public misunderstands how the system functions, we cannot discount the very real experiences that people have with the legal system and their perceptions of unfairness—rooted in reality—that feed into low levels of trust and confidence.

Logan Cornett is director of research at the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System.

Natalie Anne Knowlton is the director of special projects at the Advancement of the American Legal System.