The High Cost of Efficiency: Courthouse Tech and Access to Justice
Unanticipated consequences of new court web-based and other technology processes and procedures on indigent litigants’ access to justice.
Half a century ago, after a Florida state trial court refused to appoint counsel to represent Clarence Earl Gideon for a non-capital felony offense, Mr. Gideon appealed pro se his conviction from prison, first to the Florida Supreme Court and then to the United States Supreme Court. In a handwritten certiorari petition, Gideon argued that he had been “denied the rights of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments of the Bill of Rights.”
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792 (1963) emerged as a landmark case based in part on implicit proposition that the justice system must remain open to all citizens, including those without means, and regardless of the form or formality of their pleadings. Overruling Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 62 S. Ct. 1252 (1942), the Supreme Court reversed the Supreme Court of Florida and remanded, directing the lower court to provide counsel to Mr. Gideon.
The articles on our Website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.