Legitimacy and online proceedings: Procedural justice, access to justice, and the role of income

Courts have long struggled to bridge the access-to-justice gap associated with in-person hearings, which makes recent adoption of online legal proceedings potentially beneficial. Online hold promise for better access: they occur remotely, can proceed asynchronously, and often rely solely on written communication. Yet these very qualities may also undermine some well-established elements procedural-justice perceptions, a primary predictor how people view system's legitimacy. This paper examines implications shifting both perceptions. It investigates relationship types perceptions system legitimacy, as well relative weight predictors carry across litigant income levels. Drawing traffic court cases, we find that procedural justice access are each separately litigant's appraisal but among lower-income parties, is stronger predictor, while dominates higher-income parties. These findings highlight need incorporate into existing models