Our nation’s prom­ise of “equal justice for all” is among its proudest tradi­tions. Amer­ican courts prom­ise a forum for indi­vidu­als to settle disputes in a civil manner, under the rule of law. Courts are supposed to ensure predict­ab­il­ity so that indi­vidu­als and busi­nesses can tailor their actions accord­ingly; contracts, for example, are bind­ing because courts exist to enforce them. In our tripart­ite system of govern­ment, courts act as a check on the abil­ity of the legis­lat­ive and exec­ut­ive branches to accu­mu­late excess­ive power. They protect the most vulner­able among us and curb the excesses of major­it­ari­an­ism. Finally, courts reaf­firm the citizenry’s faith in the equal applic­a­tion of the laws and thus in the legit­im­acy of govern­ment in general.

To be sure, resort to the courts is not always a desir­able end. Anyone who has ever been involved in litig­a­tion is aware of its limit­a­tion­s—the expense, the complex­ity, the delay, and the ways in which human concerns can be filtered out of the process. Yet, the oppor­tun­ity to resolve disputes within a court pursu­ant to the rule of law remains essen­tial in a broad range of matters involving the concerns of low-income indi­vidu­als. Just as a person with substan­tial means would never dream of buying a home or seek­ing a divorce without consult­ing a lawyer, persons of modest means like­wise enter into life-alter­ing trans­ac­tions for which consulta­tion with coun­sel is essen­tial. For people of limited finan­cial means, access to an attor­ney can be the differ­ence between losing a home or keep­ing it, suffer­ing from domestic viol­ence or find­ing refuge, languish­ing in prison or reunit­ing with family and community. And as decisions related to the War on Terror have demon­strated yet again, the courts can and do func­tion as an essen­tial bulwark of liber­ty—af­ford­ing those accused of the worst crimes their only oppor­tun­ity to estab­lish their inno­cence and acting as a check on over­reach­ing by the exec­ut­ive branch.

In order for “equal justice for all” to be more than a hollow prom­ise, people require access to the courts that is mean­ing­ful, with repres­ent­a­tion by qual­i­fied coun­sel, the oppor­tun­ity to phys­ic­ally enter the court and to under­stand and to parti­cip­ate in the proceed­ings, and the assur­ance that their claims will be heard by a fair and capable decision-maker and decided pursu­ant to the rule of law. In this white paper, we describe how these features of mean­ing­ful access to the courts are increas­ingly absent. We conclude by offer­ing a series of propos­als to bridge the gap between the lofty prom­ise of equal justice and the often disap­point­ing real­ity of justice on the ground.