Consumers are telling us they want a simpler way to prepare for legal problems — before they become overwhelming.
In August 2026, JusticeChamp consumer research combined responses from 366 participants in the United States and Canada. The objective was to test whether consumers recognize the problem JusticeChamp is designed to address and whether the proposed solution is compelling enough to generate meaningful interest.
Key research figures
366
Total respondents
79.3%
Rated plain-language summaries 4–5
74.8%
Rated one-place preparation 4–5
55.9%
Rated download likelihood 7–10
Strong demand signals
JusticeChamp Consumer Validation
Percentage of respondents validating four specific demand signals for the JusticeChamp service.
Percent of respondents
What we learned
The results show a consistent pattern
Consumers value tools that help them understand legal information, organize themselves before contacting a lawyer and identify appropriate legal help.
- 79.3% rated plain-language legal summaries highly (4 or 5 out of 5).
- 74.8% rated the concept of preparing legal information in one place highly.
- 72.3% rated lawyer ratings and recommendations highly.
- 55.9% reported a 7–10 likelihood of downloading the app.
- 77.6% said they would use a service like JusticeChamp before a legal issue, when an issue arises, or before contacting a lawyer.
- 66.8% reported low confidence dealing with legal issues.
Feature demand
What Consumers Want From JusticeChamp
The most requested functions were legal-system navigation (62%), lawyer referral (61%) and legal information and resources (60%). These results support JusticeChamp's core proposition: Prepare. Protect. Connect with stress-free confidence.™
Percent of respondents
Honesty check
What This Validates — and What It Does Not
Early consumer research provides credible problem–solution validation and a clear basis for the next stage of behavioral and law-firm validation.
Download intent is not the same as an observed download, and the next stage of validation is to measure real consumer acquisition, engagement and retention while validating law-firm beta participation and purchase interest.
What it validates
The consumer problem is real and recognized. The proposed solution generates meaningful stated interest across multiple demand signals.
What it does not
It is not a claim of product-market fit. Stated download intent is not observed behaviour. Law-firm participation and purchase interest remain to be validated.
Research notes
Methodology & sample composition
The combined research included 366 respondents: 300 U.S. respondents and 66 Canadian respondents. For the overall unweighted sample, the theoretical worst-case 95% margin of error is approximately ±5.1 percentage points.
This should be treated as an approximate statistical reference because the combined sample includes different recruitment methods; the direct Canadian convenience component should not be represented as having a formal probability-sample margin of error.
Call to action
Help us build the next stage of validation.
SolonIQ is now extending this research from consumer demand to law-firm participation. We are inviting personal injury and employment law firms to help test the workflow, provide structured feedback and evaluate the potential value of JusticeChamp and SolonIQ Law.