31 Aug 2026
Two-Tiered Justice? Court Efficiency, Unequal Resources, & the Struggle for Fairness
A Question of Ethics: A Conversation on Courts and Ethics September 1st, 2026, Episode
Court professionals are committed to fairness, impartiality, and equal access, principles reflected in the NACM Model Code of Conduct. Yet many Americans believe the legal system operates on two tracks, one for those with financial resources and another for those without. This perception extends from landlord-tenant cases to family law, debt collection, consumer disputes, and other civil matters. Wealthier parties can afford attorneys, expert witnesses, and other resources, while lower-income individuals must often navigate complicated legal procedures alone. Does thispublic perception of a “two-tiered” system of justice have merit? If so, can courts do more to counter this perception?
Courts cannot eliminate economic inequality; they canimprove how people experience the justice system. Many courts have created self-service areas where self-represented litigants can come to learn about court procedures and become more familiar with how the court operates. On the other hand, self-service centers cannotadvise litigants on how to present a case to a judge. Are self-service centers enough to “balance the scales”?
Frontline court staff play a particularly critical role because they are often the first, and sometimes only, court employees with whom litigants interact. Well-trained, empathetic staff can explain court procedures, provide legal information without giving legal advice, and help individuals feel heard and respected. These interactions significantly influence public trust and confidence in the courts.
Procedural fairness is of vital importance. Even when legal outcomes cannot be changed, litigants are more likely to view the process as fair if they understand what is happening, are treated respectfully, and have an opportunity to tell their story. Meeting the litigant's "human need" to be seen and heard is just as important as meeting the "business need" of processing court paperwork efficiently. What more can courts do to address this serious need?
Should courts reach beyond courthouse walls? Rather thanwaiting for people to seek assistance, can courts partner with legal aid organizations, bar associations, libraries, schools, and community organizations to provide legal information where people live? Examples include legal clinics held in community centers, outreach at neighborhood events, informational booths at public festivals, and educational campaigns using local media and social media. These efforts can help reduce fear of the courts and increase awareness of available legal resources.
Technology offers additional opportunities but also raisesconcerns. Can artificial intelligence help self-represented litigants understand legal procedures and identify possible legal issues? However, current AI systems can also produceinaccurate information and may not recognize the nuances of individual cases.While many self-represented litigants are already using AI tools, courts are reluctant to recommend them until issues involving accuracy, unauthorized practice of law, and disclosure requirements are better resolved.
Today's Panel
Creadell Webb Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Officer, 1st Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Rick Pierce Retired Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts,Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
TJ BeMent Court Administrator, 10th Judicial Administrative District, Athens, Georgia
Norman Meyer Retired Clerk of Court, Bankruptcy Court, District of New Mexico
Kaylee Jensen Political Science Student & Government Ethics Fellow at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University, California
Erica Payne-Santiago Deputy Court Administrator for the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland
Devin Kuntz District Court Administrator 11th Judicial District in Kalispell, Montana
