shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress

Nevada Supreme Court Justice Robert Rose retired on Dec. 29, 2006, after 18 years on the high court.  In an interview given to the Nevada Appeal, “Justice Rose says it’s time to step aside (Jan. 15, 2007), the retiring justice listed helping to create Nevada’s pro se assistance programs high on the list of his accomplishments.  According to the Appeal:

One effort he says he spearheaded is the “Pro Se Counsel” program designed to help litigants who don’t have legal counsel. Rose said the system now provides more than 500 different forms to help those without lawyers handle issues, including divorce and guardianship to landlord-tenant disputes.

“That will probably help more people than anything else I’ve done on the Nevada Supreme Court,” he said (emphasis added).

I’ve been praising Nevada’s efforts to help pro se litigants for years.  The Clark County Family Law Self Help Center, in Las Vegas, is an excellent example. (see our prior post for some remarkable statistics on the use of the Self Help Center in Clark County).  As Chief Justice, Robert Rose had his priorities straight and his efforts should be applauded. [By the way, he had his priorities straight in 1977, when, as lieutenant governor and president of the state Senate, he broke a tie to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.  That vote cost him the gubernatorial election in 1978 and sent Rose back to practicing law.  Instead of a career in politics that had been predicted to make him governor and then U.S. Senator, Bob Rose was soon a superior court judge and won election to the Supreme Court in 1988.]

• You’ll find links to the 500+ Nevada standardized court forms in the SideBar of the courts’ pro se resources page.

  No message in Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s powerful Letter from a Birmingham Jail deserves repetition in today’s America more than his reminder that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”  As Greg Worthen noted today in Blawg Review 91, that truth has meaning in many aspects of the life of our nation, not merely in the context of race.  In honor of Dr. King, others are writing today about justice and equality in our criminal justice system, and in our politics, education, economy, etc. (see the compilation of such “blawg” postings at the foot of BR91). 

shlep‘s focus, naturally, is justice for all within our civil justice system.  Martin Luther King Day is a great opportunity to remind ourselves and our readers that injustice within our courts is not just ironic, it is inexcusable.  There will be no true “justice for all” until justice is accessible and meaningful to every person in America.  Please allow me to repeat a quote by New Hampshire’s Chief Justice John T. Broderick, Jr., from his Remarks on Access to Justice (February 16, 2006):

 “[I]f those in poverty or near poverty do not have meaningful access to the courts, the judicial system will not have fulfilled its constitutional obligation or the fundamental promise of our republic.  Equal justice under law is not achievable if poverty barricades the doors to our courthouses and allows some, but not all of our citizens, a fair and impartial forum to redress their grievances. Neither will it be achieved if we [viz., lawyers and judges] do not assume ownership.”

It is estimated that 80% of the legal needs of the poor and near poor go unmet in this rich nation.  As discussed here, there will never be enough lawyers to serve the needs of every American [indeed, assigning lawyers to “solve” the legal needs of every American would waste dollars better used elsewhere.]  Instead, as we say on our shlep About page:

The best way to ensure that the non-rich also have access to necessary legal and judicial services is to give them the ability and the option to formulate adequate solutions themselves, including acting as pro se litigants in court.

The numbers of self-represented parties is very large and growing in courts across our nation.  We must acknowledge, as a New Hampshire Supreme Court Task Force did in its 2004 Report “Challenge to Justice” (discussed here at f/k/a), that pro se litigants ”come into their court, on their own, with a conflict or change in their lives, and they expect a resolution. That is their constitutional right.” 

Although it doesn’t take Dr. King’s courage (in the face of physical threats, imprisonment and hatred) to fight for the right of every American for access to justice, the pro se movement and efforts to help the self-represented are an important continuation of his battle to remove injustice from our society.  Economic inequality is a continuing vestige of racial and ethnic discrimination.  Poverty (and sometimes merely being “un-rich”) has too often, and for far too long, prevented meaningful access to our civil justice system. 

 Ensuring that wealth is no longer the key to the courthouse and that our judicial system fairly serves every American is, therefore, an obligation of all who are responsible for the operation of our legal and judicial system — that means judges and court staff, lawyers, politicians and office-holders, and also voters.   Taking up that obligation honors and helps us achieve Dr. King’s dream that justice and equality for all would become America’s reality.

  “Payday loans” must really be addictive (like consumer activists insist), ’cause I couldn’t keep myself from writing about them again today (see our post on Jan. 11; update, battles everywhere over payday loans, Feb. 23, 2007).  Here’s a temptingly neutral definition from Payday Loan Times (a website that is discussed below):

A payday loan [or “payday advance“] is a short-term cash loan (usually between one and two weeks), issued to consumers. It is expected that the borrower will repay the loan after receiving his/her next paycheck. Unlike a traditional loan from a bank, there are no credit checks run on the applicant. Loans are usually issued in less than 24 hours, and are around $500. Payday loans can be obtained in person, via fax, or online.

In its Feb. 2000 Consumer Alert, Payday Loans = Costly Cash, the Federal Trade Commission explains further how payday loans work:  “Usually, a borrower writes a personal check payable to the lender for the amount he or she wishes to borrow plus a fee. The company gives the borrower the amount of the check minus the fee.”   Also called cash advance loans, check advance loans, post-dated check loans or deferred deposit check loans, such payday loans are being advertised everywhere (on tv, radio, and the internet) as an easy way to “tide yourself over” until your next paycheck.  However, here’s how they quickly become so expensive:

“Let’s say you write a personal check for $115 to borrow $100 for up to 14 days. The check casher or payday lender agrees to hold the check until your next payday. At that time, depending on the particular plan, the lender deposits the check, you redeem the check by paying the $115 in cash, or you roll-over the check by paying a fee to extend the loan for another two weeks. In this example, the cost of the initial loan is a $15 finance charge and 391 percent APR. If you roll-over the loan three times, the finance charge would climb to $60 to borrow $100.”

  The Center for Responsible Lending says that payday loans cost American families 4.2 billion dollars a year in excessive fees.  CRL has a good discussion of possible alternatives to payday loans, including “small savings accounts or rainy-day funds; salary advances from employers; credit card advances; working out extended repayment plans with creditors; and loans from friends, relatives, religious institutions, or social service agencies.  In addition, many lenders have developed lower-cost alternatives to payday loans that have better repayment terms.”   Of course, consumers likely to use payday loans often have no prior credit history or an awful one, and can’t turn to sources of credit that middle class Americans take for granted.  Industry members and their legislative supporters explain, therefore, that they are providing a necessary service at a rate commensurate with the risk they are taking.    Consumer advocates disagree.

Here are a few more quick q.s. blurbs from shlep headquarters:

 SelfHelpSupport.org just posted a pointer to the New Hampshire Judicial Branch Self-Help Center, saying “an excellent website.”  As advertised, the site’s “pages provide basic, practical information about the New Hampshire court system, how it works, and what the procedures are for bringing a case to court.” It’s Getting Started page is a very good idea, and well constructed to help the pro se party decide what needs to be done; so is the FAQ page.  Two suggestions from us: a) now that unbundling is available in all civil lawsuits in NH (prior post), the topic of unbundling needs to be addressed prominently; and b) the NH Bar Association’s LawLine program, which has volunteer lawyers giving legal advice over the phone to anonymous callers (described here) deserves a direct link, and not just a mention.

  The Out of the Jungle law librarian weblog has a pair of useful postings:

• Net Neutrality will surely continue to be in the news a lot this year.  OoJ‘s Betsy McKenzie points to several discussions of whether the new Congress is likely to be a friend or foe to Net Neutrality.  It also links to a plain-language Guide to Net Neutality from Google, for those who want to understand the concept and/or join the legislative debate.  
• Jim Milles’ post this morning (Jan. 12, 2007) has a lengthy excerpt from NY Attorney Malpractice Blog, that gives good advice about the kind of letter to write to someone who is trespassing on your property, when you don’t want to help the trespasser prove adverse possession lawsuit.  (LegalAdvice.com has a nice, brief description of the adverse possession concept.)

  Laura Orr’s Oregon Legal Research weblog has a bunch of good points and pointers, as usual:

• The AARP Bulletin, Laura says, is just chock full of useful information about government, consumer issues, law, finances and much more.  Its Ask the Expert column deals with many topics and is archived.
• This Unshelved comic strip just might have the antedote for our Overlawyered society — the oblivious MP3 generation.
• Click for the Federal Reserve Board’s Consumer’s Guide to Adjustable Rate Mortgages.
• Laura points to the Washington U. Law Library’s page on Low-Cost Legal Research Sources.

 Thanks to the Modern Woman’s Divorce Guide weblog for featuring shlep today and putting us in its select list of Favorite Weblogs.  It’s a well-designed and good-looking site. Check MWDG‘s Features links in its SideBar, which offers access to a lot of good information, from Courtroom preparation to finding out about Mediation, finding Experts, and more.  This old divorce mediator and children’s lawyer gives MWDG a big thumbs up.

A Latin abbreviation that this Editor should consider using more often is q.s. – which stands for quantum satis or quantum sufficit and means “as much as suffices.”  Doctors sometimes state the dosage of a medication to be taken by a patient as q.s.   Some items that are worth posting here at shlep don’t need a lot of space to be effective.  Others deserve a fuller treatment but aren’t likely to get it any time soon — for them, a small dose seems better than a stale one or none at all.   

Today’s blurbs come from both of those categories:

   Payday Loans: With holiday shopping bills hanging over their heads, a lot of people with poor credit ratings are tempted to turn to so-called payday loans – which appear to be structured to keep people in debt.  Jeff Sovern at Consumer Law & Policy Blog noted recently that they are a hot topic in the media these days; he links to several articles, including one from the New York Times, “Seductively Easy, Payday Loans Often Snowball” (Dec. 23, 2006).  According to the Center for Responsible Lending,

“Payday lending (sometimes called cash advance) is the practice of using a post-dated check or electronic checking account information as collateral for a short-term loan. To qualify, borrowers need only personal identification, a checking account, and an income from a job or government benefits.” 

The Center offers an excellent Overview of the topic, as well as a list of the Nine Signs of a Predatory Payday loan, Payday Policy Recommendations, and more.  Check out the Georgia’s Payday Loan Law, which is considered a model for prevending such predatory loans.

 Similar complaints are being raised about Paystub and Holiday Refund Anticipation Loans [RALs], which are short-term loans secured by the taxpayer’s expected tax refund, but are especially risky, because they’re calculated prior to filling out the borrower’s income tax forms. See Pay Stub and Holiday RALs: Faster, Costlier, Riskier in the Race to the Bottom (pdf), by Chi Chi Wu, National Consumer Law Center, and Jean Ann Fox, Consumer Federation of America (Nov. 2006); and MSNBC/AP, “Tax-refund loan seen costly,” Jan. 11, 2007.

  Court Facilitator programs in Washington State:  Like California, Washington State uses “courthouse facilitators” in family court matters. [via SelfHelpSupport.org]  If you’ve ever wondered just what a facilitator does to help pro se litigants, take a look at How Courthouse Facilitators Can Help, which also has links to other related topics covered at the Washington courts website. 

  “Estate Planning for Persons with Less Than $5 Million” (March 2007), is a lengthy paper available at SSRN, that is aimed at the needs of “people of moderate wealth” (viz. net worth of one to five million dollars).  It’s written by two lawyers and a professor (Jonathan G. Blattmachr, Jonathan G.; Georgiana J. Slade; and Bridget Crawford). The article explains that lifetime transfers are among the most effective ways to reduce estate taxes, and “details and evaluates eleven strategies that may apply to clients in the modest wealth category.”

 New  Year legislation: The National Conference of State Legislatures says at least 32 states had new laws going into effect on January 1, 2007.  They are listed by topic in New Laws Ring in the New Year (Dec. 22, 2006). 

    Just Cancel the @#%$* Account! is an article in the Dec. 22, 2006 edition of PC World. [via ConsumerWorld.org]  Author Tom Spring noticed that many free trial offers on the web are very difficult to cancel.  To evaluate how difficult canceling an online service can be, he signed up for and then canceled 32 accounts, each at a different site (they are listed and rated). His results?

About a third of the services in my sample made the seemingly simple goal of canceling very hard to achieve (see the “Big Hassle” entries in “Want to Cancel That Service?“).

Not all of my experiences were negative. Services such as a monthly New York Times TimesSelect online subscription and a monthly Consumer Reports Online account took only minutes to cancel and without lingering strings. But some others made me feel as though I’d joined the Sopranos’ family business: Once I signed up, there was no quitting!

Today’s Winnipeg Free Press article “Man beats photo radar: Manitoba judge tosses charge for speeding” (Jan 11 2007) shows that Canadian judges are willing to actively assist pro se litigants, by raising issues not addressed by the self-represented client.  (the text of the decision in HMQ v. Hykawy, Jan. 10, 2007, can be found at the foot of the article)

  The article explains:

A self-described “Joe Blow” has beat his traffic-camera speeding charge, apparently with a loophole in the way the city prosecutes camera tickets. But it wasn’t due to Richard Hykawy’s polished legal skills. In fact, it was the judge who noted a problem with the prosecution and said he couldn’t in good conscience convict Hykawy.

In a decision Wednesday, provincial court Judge Marvin Garfinkel threw out Hykawy’s Aug. 7, 2005 speeding ticket because the Crown had not properly presented evidence the camera that clocked Hykawy was correctly calibrated.

“I find there are other issues that Mr. Hykawy did not raise,” Garfinkel said. “These issues came to my attention while I was reviewing the documents filed and emphasize the dilemma a judge faces during a trial with a self-represented litigant.

“The dilemma is when and how should a judge go into the arena. In this case, in my opinion, there are obvious imperfections in the Crown’s evidence, which require me to get into the fray in order to prevent an injustice occurring.”

See our prior posts “learning from Canadian judges” and “Canadian Judicial Council Issues Self-Representation Principles, as well as this posting on Australian and Queensland judges, and this one on Massachusetts judicial guidelines.

Rather than waiting around for more studies, grants or appropriations, a team of pro se advocates is capitalizing on resources already available in a given district, to develop three pilot projects that will provide “live help to pro se litigants” in three Wisconsin counties.  (The Third Branch, “Three new pro se pilot projects on tap,” Fall 2006; via SelfHelpSupport.org)  According to Ann Zimmerman, the statewide pro se coordinator:  

“Our intent is to make use of existing resources and creative ideas with track records in other states to help our state courts provide meaningful legal access to self-represented litigants while alleviating the burden of providing such assistance on court personnel.”

Each idea is practical and doable.  As described in the article:

• One pilot project will involve providing services through the public library system, with training provided to the public librarians by staff from the State Law Library and local courts.
• Another project will involve using videoconferencing technology to connect pro se litigants with volunteers located in another county.
• The third project will involve developing a self-help clinic located in a county courthouse. The clinic will be staffed by volunteer lawyers and others, possibly with additional assistance from interested court members.

So, what are you waiting for?  Using the resources you already have, there are many ways to provide more and better pro se services (see, e.g., “Best Practices in Court-Based Programs for the Self-Represented,” from the Self Represented Litigation Network, 2006, 44 pp. pdf). With commitment, drive and ingenuity you can improve your local self-help assistance program and help make justice work more efficiently and fairly.  Not too expensive and not too shabby. 

A frontpage article in yesterday’s Washington Post describes a worsening situation in immigration courts across the nation.  “Battling Deportation Often a Solitary Journey: Without Legal Assistance, Thousands Are Expelled Unfairly, Critics of System Say” (Jan. 8, 2007)  The Post emphasizes that “a growing number of people in immigration court have no legal counsel: Of more than 314,000 people whose cases ran their course in fiscal 2005, two-thirds went through on their own, or pro se.” It goes on to explain:

“In immigration courts, there are judges and prosecutors, evidence and witnesses. The consequences can be great: banishment, separation from family, perhaps persecution at home. But unlike in criminal courts, the government does not provide free lawyers for the poor.”

“That leaves respondents to navigate byzantine immigration law, the judges to walk them through it and, critics say, the courts to operate sluggishly and deport thousands unfairly.”

  When faced with a respondent who has no counsel, “judges hand immigrants a list of charities that offer free or low-cost legal services.”  Although they can help, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review, at the Justice Department has been facilitating and expanding pro bono efforts, “volunteer legal aid services are often overwhelmed and have to turn people away.”  For example, Alberto M. Benitez, a law professor who directs the George Washington University Immigration Law Clinic, “said he and the students he supervises must sometimes temporarily shut down their service, which operates only during the school year, to catch up.” 

Although there seems to be little hope that lawyers will be found for every person or family facing deportation, my quick search this morning did not uncover a lot of materials that might help pro se litigants in immigration courts.   Readers who know of such resources are urged to let us know about them, using the comment feature or by email. 

Here are a few possible sources of immigration help and information:

Citing a widening “justice gap” and the danger of there being one court system for the wealthy and one for the poor, Chief Justice John T. Broderick Jr., of the New Hampshire Supreme Court,  has been traveling the state to deliver a plea for lawyers to take on more pro bono cases. (Portsmouth Sunday Herald, “Chief justice makes pro bono plea to lawyers,” by Dan Tuohy, Jan. 7, 2007)  He says that lawyers and court administrators must “turn and face the beast” to help people whose lives may be fundamentally changed due to a legal outcome. 

   CJ Broderick told the Herald that the delivery of justice grows more complicated as more people choose to represent themselves in court.   He noted last year that 85 percent of civil cases in district courts, at least one party is self-represented, and emphasized that an increase in pro bono services is only part of the solution.

The Herald article describes many of the pieces to the access puzzle in New Hampshire — with the courts, the bar and private organizations attempting to create a coordinated network to better serve the needs of NH citizens.  Here are a few notable points:

• Besides renewed legal assistance, the court system itself must be less cumbersome, provide additional resources and seek alternatives, according to Broderick.
• a new rule for unbundled legal services is part of the solution
• alternative dispute resolution services are crucial, with 60 to 70 percent of cases using mediators being settled without a judge — and with litigants “more likely to live up to a decision if they have a hand in resolving their dispute.” 
• Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord runs a free legal clinic and seeks to promote pro bono work as part of the culture of lawyering.
• In addition to the legal services provided by New Hampshire Legal Assistance and others, the New Hampshire Judicial Branch has its own self-help center. The center offers tips on how one gets started, as well as ways to avoid court altogether.

A New Hampshire Citizens Commission on the State Courts, which the chief justice helped establish, produced a report and several recommendations last summer (see Herald article “Making courts user-friendly“.  The commission recommended an expansion of legal representation to civil litigants unable to afford counsel and a network to help self-represented litigants navigate the legal system. Such a network could focus on a limited number of non-criminal cases in which essential rights are at stake, according to the commission.

   On Feb. 16, 2006, Chief Justice Broderick gave Remarks on Access to Justice (3 pp, pdf) to the New Hampshire Bar Association.  In it, he sets a high standard for the bar to meet, chides the profession for doing too little, and suggests what needs to be done. If you go below the fold, you’ll find key excerpts from the address. 

Whether lawyers are involved or not, divorce cases often languish on court dockets, incomplete and unattended.  Some states, such as New York, have administrative rules which prod judges to keep cases from getting stale.  In others, like California, there are apparently no built-in mechanisms to make sure that each pending lawsuit continues to actively move toward a resolution. 

An article this week in the Los Angeles Times, explores the problem — which they suggest is particularly prevalent for “do-it-yourself” divorces — and tells of one judge’s attempts to find solutions for the pro se litigants and others with stale divorce cases. (L.A. Times, “Do-it-yourself divorce doesn’t always sever ties,” by Jessica Garrison, Jan. 1, 2007)  (Hat Tip: George Wallace, at D&E)  The article focuses on Judge Mark A. Juhas of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, who discovered that:

 “about a third of the roughly 3,600 divorce cases filed in 2001 and 2002 and assigned to his courtroom remain open.  Some of those couples may have reconciled, but Juhas suspects that many more are stuck or may even think they are divorced when they are not.”

  The Times notes that “In California, getting divorced takes at least three steps: filing divorce papers, serving them on the spouse and then writing and processing a judgment with the court. The process can be more complicated if there are children or fights over assets.”   Last spring, Judge Juhas began calling in about 100 people a month whose divorce cases have languished and asking them if they need help.  He has found that about half of them still want to be divorced, but need some help (e.g., with entering the judgment after a divorce is granted). At the sessions, attorneys, some volunteer, others employees of the court’s family law resource center, help the parties figure out their status and assist people with the necesssary paperwork.

The article states that court officials are considering expanding Judge Juhas’ approach across the State.   California already does far more than most states to help “self-represented” litigants with family and divorce law issues — from extensive online Self-Help information and forms, to Self-Help Centers with trained employees and volunteers in courthouses, to providing family law facilitators in each court, who help people without lawyers (regardless of the financial status) navigate the litigation process from start to finish.   We can assume that the problem is at least as bad in states with less robust assistance for the self-represented.

 Clearly, the continuing problem of incomplete divorce cases in a model self-help state like California underscores the conclusion of experts — such as Bonnie Hough of the California Center for Families, Children and the Courts and Richard Zorza of SelfHelpSupport.org, who are quoted in the article — that adequate self-help assistance must include information and procedures that help pro se litigants understand, and accomplish, the steps necessary to complete the process they start by petitioning the court.   Let’s hope that Judge Juhas’ experience will spur experimentation and implementation of efficient and effective follow-up programs across his state and the nation.

Law.Com has posted an article about the increasing popularity of unbundling of legal services. It would appear that the trend of permitting clients and lawyers to negotiate the scope of representation has a bright future. Especially in areas of law which require direct negotiation between the parties, such as domestic relations matters, and which have a high emotional component, but no novel legal issues, unbundling will likely become common in more jurisdictions.

Read the complete article, “States Letting Lawyers Provide ‘A La Carte’ Menu of Legal Services” (AP/Law.com, Jan. 4, 2007). 

Today is the first business day on which “unbundled” legal services will be available in all civil cases in California courts (see our posting dated Nov. 1, 2006) Lawyers are now able to make “limited appearances” in every kind of California civil case, performing only the discrete tasks agreed upon by the attorney with his or her well-informed client.   Litigation unbundling is explicitly allowed in only a small number of states — and, in most of them, only in very limited contexts (usually family court and divorce matters).   Therefore, having universal unbundling unequivocally allowed in America’s most populous state is (to use a technical legal term) “a really big deal”.

California Rules of Court 3.35(a) defines “Limited scope representation” as “a relationship between an attorney and a person seeking legal services in which they have agreed that the scope of the legal services will be limited to specific tasks that the attorney will perform for the person.”  Rule 3.36 covers “Noticed representation” — providing procedures for cases in which an attorney and a party notify the court and other parties of the limited scope representation.  Rule 3.37 covers “Undisclosed representation” (including ghostwriting and coaching).

According to The Report on Limited Scope Representation in Civil Cases (39-pp. pdf), which was approved by the California Judicial Counsel in October 2006, limited scope representation can help self-represented litigants to:

• Prepare their documents legibly, completely, and accurately;
• Prepare their cases based on a better understanding of the law and court procedures than they would if left on their own;
• Obtain representation for portions of their cases, such as court hearings, even if they cannot afford full representation; and
• Obtain assistance in understanding, preparing, and enforcing court orders.

 Courts, too, benefit from unbundling: The Report states, “Limited scope representation can also reduce the number of errors in documents; limit the time wasted by the court, litigants, and opposing attorneys as a result of procedural difficulties and mistakes made by self-represented litigants; and decrease court docket congestion and demands on court personnel.”

Moreover, unbundling — especially with well-drafted rules and guidance on the topic — can be very good for lawyers. HALT [and shlep] believe that unbundling is “a win-win scenario for lawyers and consumers of legal services.   [Go beneath the fold to find more information on why unbundling is good for lawyers, clients, and courts.  A comprehensive list of services that unbundling can make available to clients on a discrete-task basis is also provided.]

Two months after its opening (covered in our prior post), the Self-Represented Legal Services Project, at the Brooklyn Family Court, is receiving high grades.   A New York Daily News article “Family Court offers free legal advice” (Dec. 28, 2006) explains that an “unprecedented partnership between private lawyers and state courts” has placed volunteer attorneys from some of the largest NYC law firms on site Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., since November 2nd.   The project is “Led by the Greenberg Traurig law firm, attorneys from Citigroup, Strook & Strook & Lavan; Reed Smith; Dechert and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.”

According to the city’s chief Family Court Justice Joseph Lauria, “It has been really exciting. It was a good idea conceptually and in reality, it is playing out well.”  Judge Lauria explains that, although the court cannot give legal advice, “What we’re doing is making available those who can give legal advice to court litigants.”

Attorney Bill Silverman, from Greenberg Traurig, told the Daily News that 100 people have taken advantage of the project in the past eight weeks.  “Family Court is truly the people’s court,” he said. “There are life decisions being made in congested courtrooms. People are simply not aware of their rights and don’t understand their rights.”

Nota Bene: Silverman goes on to make an especially important point: “[V]ery few among thousands who can’t afford attorneys actually get a judge to appoint one for free. Most lawyers, he said, are just too busy to take on many pro bono cases.”

   “This provides us with an opportunity to not take on a small handful of cases but to help dozens or hundreds of people,” [Silverman] said. “It’d be better for everyone to have lawyers, but in this half-hour, we can sort of do a triage and help as many people as we can. It does use resources in a very efficient way.”

Are you listening, bar leaders and groups, law firms, and individual lawyers?  We plan to make this obvious but ignored point again and again here at shlep:  Helping pro se litigants is an especially effective way to use the legal profession’s scarce pro bono resources.  Most Family Court litigants do not need a lawyer through every step of the process (in fact, lawyers often complicate, aggravate and prolong the process) — but, they can often use well-focused legal assistance.  

Pro bono projects, like the one at the Brooklyn Family Court, greatly leverage pro bono efforts.  New York Chief Judge Judith Kaye says she’d like to see this pilot project duplicated throughout New York City.  We’d like to see it quickly spread across the state and the country.
 

Page 13 of this month’s ‘Montana Lawyer’ (pdf, 40 pg.) features the 2006 pro bono report compiled by a VISTA working with the State Bar. His report concludes that the two most effective organized pro bono programs come from court-administered (read: mandated) programs like in Silver Bow County (Butte) and local-firm administered programs like in Billings. What are the most effective ways of galvanizing attorney support in your area?

The court-administered program in Butte simply uses an alphabetical list of attorneys who are members of the local bar organization. Clerks of court and other employees of the judicial system contact the next lawyer on the list when a pro bono need arises, only severely mitigating circumstances (upcoming trial dates or illness) are permitted to excuse an attorney from his/her duty. When local attorneys do not cooperate, the 2nd Judicial District Judges then make the calls which most often results in full cooperation. Essentially, the program is effective due to the top-level support offerred by the Judges and their court staff.

Billings’ successful pro bono program can be attributed to the firm-administered policies by Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, whose attorneys averaged almost 40 hours of legal advice or representation administered without any expectation of fees. Although Rule 6.1 of Montana’s Rules of Professional Conduct suggests that it is each attorney’s professional responsibility to provide 50 hours of pro bono service, it is neither a requirement nor enforcable by existing State Bar practices. The Crowley firm’s commitment to service is thus highly commendable and should serve as a model for other firms.

What does this report have to do with self-representation? Well, the more attorneys are involved with free legal services, the higher the likelihood that Montana will begin to take the legislative steps necessary to allow for activities like unbundled legal services and lawyer staffed self-help workstations. The more firms and courts are recognized for their commitment to service, the more incentive exists for lawyers to provide pro bono hours any way they can. As of now, only one courthouse workstation (in the state capital of Helena) can be maintained due to a dearth of volunteers. Montana Legal Services Association has made an effort to open a second workstation in the University town of Missoula, where law students can provide the volunteer hours necessary to sustain such an endeavour. But MLSA can only do so much, and because attorneys exist and are encouraged to provide service everywhere in Montana, they are a relatively untapped yet potentially valuable resource for the pro se community.

Because unbundling is yet to take off in Montana, the report also notes that pro bono representation is an effective means of relieving the pro se docket, especially in family law cases for which the Bar offers discounted or free resources in the form of Form Books and a mentoring service through which pro bono lawyers can receive advice from more expereinced attorneys who have dealt with the nuances of specific case types. What kind of resources are offered by your local bar to assist attorneys and how do these relate to the pro se litigant?