Automated document preparation has long held great promise for expanding access to justice. We now have good reasons to expect the promise to be redeemed. This introductory article provides some background and history, and then describes the current national server project.

Document assembly

Technologies for the automated production of legal documents have been in use for well over 25 years, and increasingly sophisticated applications can be found on law office desktops across the profession. Document assembly tools offer greatly improved productivity and quality in the delivery of legal services. But for various cultural, political, and economic reasons, actual use has remained limited to discrete islands of enthusiasts.

Many software tools help people quickly generate certain types of well-structured documents. Contracts and wills are good examples. A lawyer, paralegal, secretary, or do-it-yourselfer responds to a series of dialogs and prompts, often from within a familiar word processing program, and the system assembles a draft document. Or the user picks forms, clauses, and other document components as needed from libraries of alternatives.

Sometimes, the document assembly system is obtained from a legal publisher or software vendor and is designed to produce specific types of documents valid in certain jurisdictions. (TurboTax from Intuit is a popular example. Other well-known, off-the-shelf systems include Immigrant Pro from Immigrant Software and WillMaker and LeaseWriter from Nolo Press.) Other times, an organization develops a custom system with one of the document assembly “engines,” using its own forms and experience. This can require a fair amount of up-front time and tedious work (thinking through and programming many possible alternatives), but can result in excellent leveraging of practical legal knowledge.

Either way, the basic goal is to capture some of the regularities underlying the documents—which sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words go where under what circumstances. The document assembly engine steers the user toward choices and asks the user to specify details like names, numbers, dates, and phrases. Instead of cutting and pasting, the user picks desired options or alternatives from lists; instead of searching and replacing phrases like “plaintiff name” with a client’s name, the user responds to questions and lets the computer do the clerical work.

While terminology varies among programs, there is usually a “template” that represents a model of particular kind of document, with “variables” placed in locations that change from case to case. When the template is run, the user answers questions corresponding to the variables (posed in a series of interview-style dialogs), the answers are stored in some kind of “answer file,” and the desired document is generated. Typically a given answer file stores all the data relevant to a single client or client-matter, and that answer file can be used to generate more than one document or form (e.g., a complaint for divorce, a financial statement, and various motions in a family law system). Answers can be changed later (e.g., a correction to the name of the client) and the document(s) can be re-generated. The generated document is usually in some textual format (e.g., Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, rich text format) and can be freely edited after assembly.

In addition to basic point-and-shoot clause selection and fill-in-the-blanks variable replacement, document assembly systems can store drafting rules and other kinds of practitioner knowledge that can guide the hands of novices and experts alike. For example, a divorce system can ask the user about the client’s state of residence, marital status, financial situation, and number of children and, based on the answers and follow-up questions, insert appropriate clauses into the complaint and associated motions. Document assembly technology has been applied to everything from simple thank-you letters to elaborate expert systems that advise on the laws of many jurisdictions and generate document sets reaching into hundreds of pages.

Online Document Assembly

The World Wide Web opens up new opportunities for organizing and delivering document assembly applications. Any or all of the major components–engine, templates, answers, documents, or help material–can be served from or stored on a web server, providing location independence, multi-user access, ease of use, and other benefits. A big advantage of web-based implementation for advocates is the centralization and instant updating of template collections. For pro se users, web-based systems allow access to robust document automation without requiring that special purpose, local software be purchased, installed, configured, and maintained. Often, only a browser, an Internet connection, and a printer are required–tools that are available in most public libraries. For information technology professionals (and budget conscious managers), a single, centralized server and staff can economically provide document assembly capabilities to hundreds or thousands of users.

Important Differences Among Document Assembly Systems

1. Generation of word processing documents vs. graphical forms. Document assembly applications can generate both freely editable word processing documents and fixed-format, “graphical” forms, where the background is static and information can only be placed in predesignated fields.

2. Questioning and advice vs. document generation. Most document assembly applications allow users to provide information and make drafting decisions through questionnaire-like screen dialogs that are outside of a target document. There is a discrete interface in which questions can be asked and advice given. Many document assembly tools can in fact be used to produce information gathering modules, advisory systems, and intelligent checklists that need not result in any traditional document at all.

3. Systems designed for advocates vs. self-help users. Document assembly technology can be used both by advocates providing services for clients and by individuals doing work for themselves. Application design can differ dramatically for the two target communities. Even among advocates, there can be important differences between the needs of staff advocates and pro bono or other volunteers. There are also hybrid pro se/advocate scenarios, in which the client answers an online questionnaire on his or her own, either in the law office or elsewhere, and the answer file goes to the advocate for further review, revisions, and actual document drafting.

4. Tools for users vs. developers. Document assembly software typically offers distinct tools and interfaces for “end users” and developers. Many of the features and issues critical for people charged with developing applications are irrelevant to the ultimate users of the software, and vice versa. Some software choices offer excellent end user interfaces but clumsy development tools, and vice versa.

Players and Platforms

There have been a dizzying variety of technologies, vendors, and approaches in the legal document assembly universe since the late 1970s. In a recent exercise, I was able to list 65 discrete document assembly “engines” aimed at lawyers that have been commercially available at some point. (Most are long gone.) And that does not count case management, word processing, and related products that include non-trivial document automation functionality, nor the many academic and research applications in this field.

Even in the online document assembly marketplace there have been dozens of players. Besides the document assembly engines that enable custom applications based on an organization’s own content, there are now many fee-for-services providers of prefabricated forms aimed at both lawyers and self-helpers. See for instance http://www.uslegalforms.com/, http://www.mylawyer.com/, and http://www.legalzoom.com/. These private-sector developments are helping to expand consumer choice–and shake up a complacent legal profession–but may pose questions of second-class quality, especially for disadvantaged citizens.

In the nonprofit legal services world, there have long been initiatives, both on- and off-line. Some legal services organizations have developed their own systems and made them available to fellow organizations. Examples include the Greater Boston Legal Services family law and eviction defense systems, which are starting to be used widely in Massachusetts. The California-based I-CAN!â„¢ project has served interactive forms to tens of thousands of lay users over the past several years. The Access to Justice (A2J) project at Chicago-Kent College of Law arose out of studies of self-representation in the court system.

National Nonprofit Efforts–A Brief History

The national efforts chronicled here are the culmination of Technology Initiative Grants from the Legal Services Corporation dating back to fall 2001.

In 2001-02, the community undertook a national planning process on web-based document assembly technology in civil legal assistance. Many approaches and software alternatives were considered. Conclusions and recommendations, along with background documents, can be found at http://lstech.org/workgroups/doc_assembly.

In 2002-03, the Illinois Technology Center (ITC) built and tested a model environment for online document assembly that could be used in advocate, pro bono, and pro se scenarios and accessed through web sites like the Probono.net and Kaivo portals. HotDocs Online, donated by LexisNexis, was adopted for this purpose. Lexis also donated two copies of HotDocs Pro to every state for template creation and maintenance. A developer training workshop was held and various design standards were circulated.

In 2003-05 the project focused on (1) a production server, (2) training and support for template developers, and (3) enhancements and extensions. Ohio State Legal Services Association, the national grant recipient, managed funds and worked to ensure that these activities best supported related efforts around the country. Kaivo Software and Capstone Practice Systems joined together to build and manage the production server. TIG grants have also supported template development in several states and many ongoing initiatives in the field that draw upon these arrangements.

New TIG funds have been approved that will cover basic operations through early 2007, beginning with intensive efforts to ensure the project’s long-term sustainability.

The result has been a proven facility for delivering interactive interviews and document generation to self-represented individuals and advocates alike, from a web-connected browser, anywhere and anytime, using industry-standard software. After three years of planning and preparation, the national server is solidly operational in technical, organizational, and legal terms. We call it National Public ADO (Automated Documents Online, or NPADO) to underscore its function as a free resource for the public good.

NPADO’s Mission

Our core mission has been to provide the nonprofit legal services community with tools that reduce the time and know-how needed for document-oriented legal work, enabling some people to serve themselves and advocates to more efficiently help clients.

Some important principles have emerged through the evolution of NPADO:

Enabling services. We are primarily an enabler of services designed and delivered by first-tier organizations in coordination with statewide websites and have not been in the content-development or end-user support business ourselves.

Neutrality. We are not an advocacy organization and do not take positions on issues of legal substance or public policy.

Generality. We are not limited to Legal Services Corporation grantees, or directly subject to its regulations. Our services are available to all who cannot afford private legal assistance and to those who serve them on a nonprofit basis.

Integrated justice systems. We expect providers to coordinate their efforts through integrated statewide justice communities, not fragmentary or isolated efforts.

Platform independence. While we are built primarily around the HotDocs engine, we support alternative interfaces like A2J and I-CAN!â„¢, and we are open to tools from other vendors.

More than just document assembly. We are able and ready to support a variety of interactive online media applications, even those that may not result in a conventional document or form. For example, our facilities can be used for food stamp eligibility calculations, intelligent intake questionnaires, and hotline scripts.

Complementarity. We try to leverage existing resources like Legal Meetings, the National Technology Assistance Project, and LStech, and to promote reuse of template components among our contributors. We seek to complement and empower related applications like the statewide websites, case management systems, LiveHelp, I-CAN! â„¢, and A2J.

Imagining the Future

We have only just begun. Even though NPADO has already served over 20,000 assemblies from the national server (many of them admittedly tests and demos) and have close to a thousand templates posted (ditto), we have only scratched the surface of possibilities. There are vast opportunities for technical expansion and improvement. But most of all we need more people to contribute–content, ideas, local implementations. Please consider joining in.

Surely many legal problems call for the dedicated attention of an experienced advocate. Surely many people are not willing or able to solve their own legal needs through a computer. But many problems can be addressed and many people can be served that way. Let us save our scarce human advocates for those who cannot help themselves otherwise. And let us equip our advocates with the tools to be as effective as possible.

Imagine a world in which all the legal forms and associated know-how that anyone cares to computerize and give away can be consolidated and delivered to low-income people for free. Imagine tens of thousands of intelligent legal forms being accessed by millions of such people and their advocates on a regular basis. That world is within reach.

Marc Lauritsen, president of Capstone Practice Systems, has worked as a poverty lawyer, taught in and directed the clinical program at Harvard Law School, done path-breaking work on document automation and artificial intelligence, and been an executive in several startups. He is a leader in international law and technology organizations and co-chairs the American Bar Association’s eLawyering Task Force. He can be reached at marc@capstonepractice.com.