shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress

  An editorial in Sunday’s Foster’s Daily (Dover, NH) gives a good review to the new “limited litigation” rules for New Hampshire lawyers, which took effect on July 1. (“À la carte lawyering an important step toward affordable justice,” Dec. 3, 2006)  Noting that the Supreme Court decided to allow “a la carte lawyering” in response to “a sharp rise in do-it-yourself lawyering” and “the enormous hourly rates charged by many lawyers,” the piece summarizes the advantages and potential pitfalls of unbundled litigation.   It also describes a report done for the judiciary that calls for making courts “more user-friendly,” and changing the attitudes of some judges and court staffs, who seem to “resent civilians.”   This excellent editorial concludes:

“At least now litigants have the option of working with their lawyer to save money and learn more about the judicial system while they are at it.  That should, in the long run, serve well the judicial system and the general public by demystifying the process and lowering costs.”

Note: Rule 1.2 (f) of the N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct sets forth the lawyer’s obligations when engaging in Limited Representation in Litigation, and (g) offers a Sample Form “Consent to Limited Represenation,” as a guide for client and lawyer.

 As discussed at f/k/a, the New Hampshire judiciary published a first-rate report on the needs of pro se litigants in January, 2004. Called Challenge to Justice (Jan. 2004), it is notable for both its positive tone and thorough approach to helping the pro se litigant.  A key concept is summarized in two sentences: “All of the suggestions within this report however, are grounded on the single principle that meaningful access to justice in today’s world means a clear recognition by those involved in the system that many of our constituents want to go it alone when they come to court. Our obligation is to give these citizens the help they want, need and deserve. ” (emphasis added)

On Thursday, Margaret H. Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, gave her Annual Address to the Massachusetts Bar Association (Nov. 30, 2006, pdf; MassCourts Press Release).  As an article in yesterday’s Boston Herald suggests, a significant part of the Address concerned the issue of unrepresented litigants in the Massachusetts courts. (“Some Civil Courts Short on Legal Help, Dec. 1, 2006) [Note: If you click “read the rest of this entry” below, you will find the entire section of Justice Marshall’s Address dealing with this topic.]

  Noting that 70% of litigants in Housing, Family and Probate Courts appear without counsel, Chief Justice Marshall proudly states that “Massachsetts is emerging as a national leader in addressing the challenges presented by self-represented litigants.”  As examples, she points to the brand new “limited representation” [unbundling] pilot project in the Probate and Family Courts of two counties (see our prior post) — with the good news that response of the Bar has been “overhwelming, and positive” — and to volunteer Lawyer-for-a-day projects in housing courts.  

CJ Marshall then notes” “Despite our best efforts and those of the bar, many litigants remain unable to afford an attorney. What of them?”  Her answer: “the excellent handbook providing critical information to those who represent themeselves, including information onhow to obtain counsel” which has been sent to every civil court clerk and law library in the State, and is available online.  [Ed. note: see “Representing Yourself in a Civil Case: Things to Consider When Going to Court” (81 pp, pdf) and MassCourts Self Help website] 

Although I do wonder whether the Bar has used its “best efforts” to make legal services affordable to all (e.g., how much fee-cutting has gone on?), I join the Chief Justice in applauding Massachusetts’ efforts to help those who appear pro se in their courts and to help spread the concept and use of unbundled legal services.  I am concerned, however, with Chief Justice Marshall’s statement:

“. . . we recognize that litigants are best served when they are represented by counsel.  Securing represerntation for all parties, in all civil cases, remains our goal.”

Granted, she is addressing the bar association and perhaps needs to placate those who fear that the self-help movement is taking away work that rightly belongs to the lawyer guild.  But, shouldn’t she be fighting that attitude, not perpetuating it?  The mantra “litigants are best served when they are represented by counsel” is simply overbroad, and sounds much too much like the approach voiced by the Massachusetts Bar President in 2001. 

A couple days ago, the often-thoughtful Ted Frank, of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a posting at Point of Law, “The Coase Theorem in action” (Nov. 28, 2006), that was all conclusion and no evidence.  Having read the New York Times article “Only the Strongest Survive” (Nov. 26, 2006), Ted asserts that NY courts are “very pro-tenant” and concludes that the situation has not made tenants better off.  After telling us that many landlords won’t build new housing (despite high rents), decry the six months it can take to evict a tenant, and reject outright any tenant who has a housing court history, Ted concludes:

“Tenants would be much better off ex ante if landlords could trust the court system to resolve disputes fairly and quickly ex post.”

  I’d like to point out that:

• “the court system” is applying laws passed by legislative bodies, based on a long history of landlord abuses (and on the inherent importance of housing to individuals and families, rich or poor), and are not being arbitrarily “pro-tenant” or unfairly anti-landlord
• Neither the typical NYC landlord, nor Ted Frank, has (to my knowledge) supported raising taxes in order to create more judgeships and better courthouse systems and services, which would make the process work more quickly at Housing Court
• Any calculus of whether tenants are better off under the present system must take into account the many ways in which landlords have improved the treatment of their tenants and have been deterred from using their old abusive and neglectful tactics

Self-Represented litigants often find it difficult to sift through the copious and confusing amounts of information on legal websites. As such, Montana and Iowa have launched a new feature called ‘LiveHelp’, where users can chat with a live trained operator to address their concerns or questions regarding legal information. The chat button is located in the upper right hand corner of both websites, Montana’s here and Iowa’s here. ProBono.net recently published an article about the feature.

Pro se litigants, practitioners and programs have been the subject of several recent articles of note:

• After winning his pro-marijuana Initiative battle against the city of Sun Valley, Ryan Davidson is asking the Idaho Supreme Court to reconsider their earlier denial of attorney fees.  The high court agreed with Davidson that Sun City did not have the authority to decide whether the Initiative was constitutional.  Davidson is asking for $50,000 in compensation after his two-year battle to get the Initiative on the ballot in Sun City.  He says it is discriminatory not to allow attorneys fees to pro se litigants.  According to the Idaho Mountain Express (“Pro-Marijuana Petitioner Seeks Compensation,” Nov. 29, 2006), Davidson makes the intesting policy point that: “not awarding attorney fees to pro se (non-attorney) litigants can expose them to frivolous litigation from government entities, which would not run the risk of having to pay attorney fees even if they lose a case.”
• The Salt Lake Tribune helped spread the word about the plight of pro se litigants in Utah, in an article “More people choosing to skip lawyers: Self-representation on the rise, courts want litigants to be more informed” (Nov. 27, 2006).  The article describes the findings of a report by the Utah judiciary.  The report told of the high numbers of pro se litigants, gave demographic information, noted that most self-represented “seemed satisfied” with their court experience, and made several recommendations.  Unfortunately, the newspaper could not resist the temptation to bring out an old cliche, and began the article with the sentence: “If it is true, as the saying goes, that a person ‘who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,’ then Utah’s courts see plenty of fools.”
• California superior courts provide Family Law Facilitators to assist persons in family matters who do not have attorneys.  The program at the Santa Maria facilities of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court recently hired experienced attorney Denise Motter as its Family Court Facilitator, and The Lompoc Record gave excellent coverage in an article on Nov. 27, 2006, highlighting Ms. Motter’s background and the many services she offers.

 There are more news blurbs under the fold.

Under “Bill 14“, a statute passed on Oct. 19, 2006, the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) now has a Paralegal Standing Committee in place to set policy and administer a regulatory scheme that will go into effect on May 1, 2007.  Five of the 13 members are paralegals and three others are lay members of the Society.  (Law Times, “LSUC sets up paralegal committee,” Nov. 27, 2006; LSUC News Release) According to the Ontario Attorney General, Michael Bryant:   

“The Access to Justice Act will provide for paralegal regulation in order to give consumers a choice in qualified legal services while protecting people who get legal advice from non-lawyers. For the first time in Canada’s history, paralegals will be required to receive training, carry liability insurance and report to a public body that can investigate complaints.”

A Nov. 17, 2006 press release from the Ontario AG also asserts that “Ontario consumers looking for legal services are closer to having more choice and better protection, as the provincial government moves to solidify a new system for authorizing, empowering and regulating paralegals,” and goes on to explain (“New Era Begins with Pathbreaking Paralegal Regulation”):

“Under the act, the Law Society of Upper Canada, which regulates lawyers, will now also regulate paralegals.  If authorized by the Law Society, paralegals will continue to provide the services they are currently authorized to provide including representation in small claims court matters, traffic infractions and other provincial offences, and tribunals.”  

 The Ontario Bar is, apparently, quite pleased with its new role as regulator of legal services provided by paralegals.  (see LSUC Paralegal Information Page)  However, it’s difficult for consumer advocates who have watched the regulatory style of lawyers (and most other professions), and the Bar’s broad dislike of independent paralegals, to be universally sanguine about the regulatory scheme that is being established as a model in Ontario.    Many questions come to mind, but the most prominent are:

If you don’t mind learning legal basics that have been filtered through a bit of poetic license, you might want to check out Yehuda Berlinger’s Board Games and Gaming Blog.  Yehuda occasionally presents verse versions of major statutory schemes.  So far, he’s covered:

• the U.S. Copyright Code in verse
• the U.S. Patent Code in verse
• the U.S. Trademark Code in verse 
• the U.S. Armed Forces Code in verse, Chapters 1 and 2,  Chapters 3-5, Chapters 6 – 9, Chapters 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, Chapters 22, 23 & 31, and Chapter 32, 33, 33A, 35

Despite our love of haiku, shlep does not advise that you rely solely on Yehuda’s verse for your study of major statutory schemes, or parts thereof.  For example, here is his treatment of Sec. 107 of the Copyright Act:

107

Despite all of these rights
All people can reproduce
To report, criticise, or teach
Because that is fair use

While that is a reasonable summary, go here for a few extra resources on the complex topic of Fair Use and Copyright. [via Blawg Review #85, by Peter Black at Freedom to Differ, who also graciously pointed to two of our postings from last week.]

A Google News Alert for “pro se” brought me to June Maxam’s North Country Gazette this morning — my first stop there since questioning, in a series of postings last month, NCG‘s claim that “Fair Use is not applicable” to the copyrighted material appearing at that site.  The Nov. 21st NCG‘s article is about Florida Judge Cliff Barnes, who is representing himself before the State’s Judicial Qualifications Commission.  The Barnes story is interesting, and concerns public complaints he made about the conduct of other judges, local enforcement officers, and the public defender.  (Read more here and here.)  The judge seems more than capable of presenting his own case, so the story does not particularly deserve a lot of shlep attention. 

 What is worth noting, to update our readers and the record, is the current copyright notice at the end of the North Country Gazette article.   The broad claim of rights now ends with the words “This article is copyright protected” and no longer has the erroneous statement “Fair Use is not applicable.”  In addition, the Home Page Sidebar no longer contains the wrongheaded prohibition against all reproduction “in accordance with Fair Use.”  

I’m not sure when the changes were made, but the oldest piece linked to today’s front page, dated Nov. 14th, does have the corrected version.   (I checked only one article, dated Oct. 19, 2006, to see if older NCG pieces had also been amended.  That article, which was a verbatim copy of a NYS court press release, continues to say “This article is copyright protected and Fair Use is not applicable.”)  This result — ending the incorrect Fair Use Disclaimer — was my modest goal when I first approached the publisher of NCG and raised the topic at this weblog.   I’m thankful the misleading statement about the Fair Use doctrine is gone, as it did a disservice to readers of the Gazette.  I’m also hopeful that my mentioning this good outcome won’t lead to its reversal, as happened after only one day last month.   We should applaud The North Country Gazette for changing its policy.

This information may be too late for Daniel Wallace (see our prior post).  But, shlep wants to help the nonlawyer understand antitrust law, so that decisions about suing (or seeking legal assistance) will be better-informed and, more generally, so that members of the public can better evaluate the action (or inaction) of prosecutors and private litigants.   Last week’s news that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has opened an investigation into “whether the Infectious Diseases Society of America has violated antitrust laws in setting new guidelines for diagnosing and treating Lyme disease” (Hartford Courant, Nov. 17, 2006; via Antitrust Review), suggests both that antitrust will often be clumsily used as a political panacea and that even prosectors should be brushing up on antitrust basics.  

  Our task is made much easier by a project that I put together for the American Antitrust Institute [AAI] a few years ago.  It is a Guide to Antitrust Resources on the Web, that has annotated links to hundreds of online materials, searchable and presented in numerous categories, including: 

• antitrust Primers and Overviews from a variety of sources and points of view
• federal (U.S.A.) antitrust statutes and regulations — Sherman, Clayton, Robinson-Patman, and more
• U.S. enforcement agencies and guidelines
• state antitrust resources
• antitrust exemptions: Parker/State-Action, Noerr-Pennington (seeking government aciton), Baseball, Business of Insurance, and more
• International Competition Resources, including: a) Competition Links Worldwide: links to National Competition Authorities, compiled by UNCTAD; National Competition Legislation: Compiled by UNCTAD, this is a growing list of links to English versions of laws for the protection of competition in various nations, including Bulgaria, Chile, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Lithuania, Malawi, Mexico, New Zealand, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Zambia, Zimbabwe; and c) materials on specific Regions and Countries 

To keep up on antitrust issues in the news, we suggest: a) The daily posting on antitrust news, scholarship and opinion by Crane, Fischer, Kaiser & Gabriel at the Antitrust Review Weblog, and by Prof. Ghosh at his AntitrustProf Blog (update: Prof. Ghosh has been joined by Prof. D. Daniel Sokol and renamed the site Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog).   b) Quarterly expert analysis on current issues from The Antitrust Source, an online publication from the American Bar Association’s Section on Antitrust.   c) Sheppard Mullin’s monthly newsletter editions at its Antitrust Law Blog.  And, d) the AAI homepage, where you can keep abreast of its many advocacy initiatives and educational projects and publications.

  For intellectual and historical background, you might want to read about The Factions of Antitrust.  There are four major schools of thought in the United States concerning the relationship between government and economic markets, resulting in four corresponding approaches to the role of antitrust and competition policy. From political “right” to “left”, they are: Libertarian, Neoclassical (“Chicago”), Post-Chicago, and Populist.  As is suggested in recent postings at the Antitrust Review weblog and Truth on the Market, the “Chicago School” has won most of the important debates in antitrust law — in academia and the courts — over the past couple of decades.

update (Nov. 25, 2006): A listing at ConsumerWorld’s Legal Resources page reminded us that Prof. Anthony D. Becker of St. Olaf College has put together the The Antitrust Case Browser, which has links to case summaries for all U.S. Supreme Court antitrust cases, arranged alphabetically, chronologically and by subject and industry.  It also has links to statutes and other antitrust resources.

update (Feb. 14, 2007): Prof. D. Daniel Sokol at the Antitrust & Competition Policy weblog has posted today on What are the Best Souces for Antitrust/Competition Policy News?

   One that Oscar Forgot (update, Feb. 26, 2007): Last night’s Academy Awards ceremony apparently overlooked a real contender in the Short-form documentary category.  Russel Mokhibor wrote a glowing review of Fair Fight in the Marketplace in the Feb. 21, 2007 edition of Corporate Crime Reporter.  Mokhibor is impressed (and surprised) that a 30-minute primer on antitrust could be so interesting and informative. The review notes that “The movie, narrated by National Public Radio’s Mara Liasson, traces the history of the antitrust laws – and keeps it interesting for young people with cartoon depictions of price fixing and television clips of kids competing.”  The English-language film will have Spanish and Mandarin subtitles (the review has an interesting explanation for the Mandarin). There’s even a special edition with commentary for high schoolers. The reviewer also gushes that:

“[T]he film actually becomes gripping educational television – am I losing my bearings here? – when it profiles the Mylan Labs, ADM and Microsoft cases.” 

Perhaps the film, which is the brainchild of Bert Foer, president of the American Antitrust Institute, will be eligible for an Oscar next year, as it will have its broadcast premiere on PBS in April.   You can see it online at any time here.

Here are a few notable items for the self-help law community:

• We need many more mass-media articles like the one in the Sunday Boston Globe, on unbundling advances in New Hampshire and Vermont. See “New rules let N.H. lawyers handle part of a case,” Nov. 19, 2006.  Such press coverage helps the public learn about the discrete-task lawyering option, and lets lawyers know that other lawyers are doing it and gaining more business.
• Thanks to Jen Burke at the weblog Transcending Gender for linking to our posting on Living-Together & Pre-Marital Agreements as part of Blawg Review #84.  Her posting for BR #84 contains a lot of links to resources on transgender law, rights, legislation and policy (which greatly expand on our Nov. 7th post about gender and name changes), as well as a moving section on the Annual Day of Remembrance for those who have lost their lives due to gender-based hatred and violence, Nov. 20th.”
• Michael Jefferson, “a New Haven criminal defense lawyer, former radio talk show host and civil rights activist,” is the focus of the article “‘Whites must take lead against racism’,” in today’s New Haven Register(Nov. 20, 2006).  As an example of institutional racism that he has experienced in courthouses, the article states: “Jefferson recalled sitting outside a judge’s chambers in federal court waiting for his case to be called, when a clerk walked up and said ‘you must be pro se,’ assuming he was representing himself. Again, not believing he could be an attorney.”  This editor has also seen racism in courthouses (usually the result of the ignorance or prejudice of an individual, rather than the system) and concurs it must indeed be eliminated.  However, I would like to believe that Mr. Jefferson was mistakenly considered to be there in a pro se capacity because he looked more prepared, engaged and focused on justice than many of his professional colleagues.
• Last week, at MyShingle, Carolyn Elefant discussed an article in the Harvard Law Bulletin for Fall 2006, called “The Coming Wave.”  The article focused on the growing number of law students — and Baby Boomer alumni from the 1970s — who are turning to public interest/service jobs, and the programs at Harvard that are helping in that process.  One such program, the focus of Carolyn’s piece, helps young lawyers and law students learn the nuts and bolts of starting a solo law practice (especially those aimed at underprivileged or vulnerable communities).   Such programs and law practices can be an important part in the profession’s efforts to help assure justice for all.  As the NLADA news letter recently pointed out, state Access to Justice commissions have much to gain from expanding on partnerships with law schools, and creating new ones. 
• The Equal Justice Works and Newsweek.com E-GUIDE TO PUBLIC SERVICE AT AMERICA’S LAW SCHOOLS  (see the EJW Press Release, Aug. 14, 2006) is an excellent source of free online resources for anyone (from judges, court administrators, and law firms to prospective law students) seeking a broad range of information about public interest programs and curricula at law schools.  Naturally, shlep hopes that such programs increasingly help the growth of self-help law resources and the spread of unbundled lawyering services. 

Frankly, I’ve known quite a few antitrust lawyers who don’t fully understand antitrust law — especially its treatment of concepts such as injury, conspiracy, price-fixing and predatory pricing. It’s no surprise at all, then, that yet another court has rejected pro se plaintiff Daniel Wallace‘s faulty antitrust allegations against the GNU free operating system and the General Public License (GPL) for its copyrighted software. (see Wallace v. IBM, et al, 7th Circuit, No. 06-2454, issued Nov. 9, 2006; Enterprise Open Source Magazine, “Wallace Loses Appeal – GPL is Legal,” Nov. 18, 2006; Antitrust Review weblog, Nov. 9, 2006)

In his district court loss against the Free Software Foundation in March of this year, Wallace was allowed to amend his complaint four times, in the hope that he might come up with an allegation that (if proven) amounted to an antitrust violation. He failed and Judge John Daniel Tinder correctly dismissed the suit and ordered Wallace to pay FSF’s costs.

Wallace wanted to compete against the Linux system but complained that he could not, because the General Public License allowed the software to be distributed for free. Judge Tinder pointed out that injury to Wallace was not the same as injury to the marketplace and consumers:

“[T]he GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation.”

Last week, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the federal 7th Circuit appellate court, the often-acerbic Judge Frank H. Easterbrook confirmed the dismissal of Wallace’s claims. Easterbrook took Wallace’s misinterpretations of antitrust law apart issue by issue. The 6-page opinion ends with the sentence: “The GPL and open-source software have nothing to fear from the antitrust laws.”

In May 2005, the Groklaw weblog speculated that Wallace might himself be part of a conspiracy — acting as a stand-in for companies that would like to see Linux and GPL fail. That seems a bit farfetched to me, however, because such companies surely would have made sure that Wallace got competent antitrust advice (and maybe ghostwriting assistance) when drafting his complaints. For me, the case is a reminder that — despite what many members of the general public and the legal profession appear to believe — weaving fanciful theories of liability by ignoring the special definitions that words and concepts are given in a particular body of law, is not good lawyering and not good advocacy. When a pro se litigant does it, he or she deserves to be politely told to get it together or get lost.

In January 2004, the New York Times published an informative piece on “prepaid legal services” insurance policies, “The H.M.O. Approach to Choosing a Lawyer,” by Susan B. Garland, Jan. 11, 2004).  The article noted: “According to the American Bar Association, half of all consumers who need a lawyer do not seek legal help. The reasons include cost and uncertainty: many people say they do not know how to find a good attorney. This potential demand is fueling the growth of prepaid legal-services plans, also known as legal H.M.O.’s.”  It also reported that “Most legal plans are aimed at consumers with annual household incomes of $50,000 to $150,000.” 

As I stated at the time, in a posting at f/k/a, the NYT article is a very good introduction to the concept of prepaid legal services.  It includes a helpful checklist, with explanations, that consumers should keep in mind, when considering the purchase of such coverage.

Today’s Metropolitan News-Enterprise (Los Angeles, CA) reports that a new Self-Help Law Access Center recently opened in the Santa Monica Courthouse of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  (“Lefkowitz Praises New Facilities in Santa Monica Courthouse,” Nov. 16, 2006)  It’s great that a sixth Self-Help Center has opened in LA County, allowing “court customers to receive information about legal forms, court appearances and courtroom procedures from attorney-supervised paralegals and trained volunteer,” and supplementing extensive online self-help resources.  And, it’s nice to read that West District Supervising Judge Linda Lefkowitz is proud of the new facility, which is funded by the LA County Department of Consumer Affairs

  But, what is especially heartening is seeing that it was the efforts of Zev Yaroslavsky, an LA County Supervisor that “led to board approval of the facility’s funding.”  When local politicians are smart enough to see the need for courthouse centers to help the unrepresented litigant, and when they are savvy enough to know that such support can have political advantages, we should see much more being done around the country to give the public the kind of accessible court system that they deserve.  Consumers and their advocates need to take this message to their legislators.  It is a win-win issue for the public and political leaders who join the cause.    

1] Alton Louis Vaughn, Sr., a/k/a “Bishop” Vaughn, of Springfield, Missouri, founded an organization a few years ago that he called Pro Se Help International.   According to the Kansas City Star/AP (Nov. 14, 2006), Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has now charged Vaughn with four counts of “unlawful merchandising practices” fraud for posing as a lawyer and fraudulently accepting more than $38,000 from at least four people.  The KC InfoZine reports that the AG’s probable cause statement alleges the defendant “would repeatedly demand additional payments from his clients while claiming to represent them, fail to complete work on the cases and then neglect to refund payments made to him by those clients, the statement alleges.” InfoZine gives more details of the alleged actions (and failures to act) by Vaughn with regards to three of his “clients.”  (InfoZine staff, “Springfield Man Allegedly Misrepresented That He Could Practice Law,” Nov. 14, 2006) 

When we talk about helping litigants to appear pro se, and offering unbundled assistance to clients, we do not mean the conduct described above.  In case you’re wondering when shlep would be happy to see Unauthorized Practice of Law charges filed against an individual, these facts — if proven — certainly would qualify.

2]  We found a different kind of slur against pro se and self-help this evening, when backtracking on a referral to shlep from a Google search result — and, it was from a surprising source.   Someone entered the query represent self fool for lawyer and the 4th result went to the Using Self Help page of the Tenants Legal Center of San Diego, a “community Law office” that boasts of its record of community service, and its low fees.   I went to the webpage expecting a refutation of the “fool for a client” cliche, but instead found what amounts to scare tactics meant to keep tenants from using self-help at any time “when legal documents are served or when action is threatened or commenced.” The Center warns, for instance, that “almost all tenants who represent themselves lose the case or agree to a bad settlement.”  It also ends a lengthy section captioned What Else Is Wrong with Self-Help Materials? with the unsubtle counsel that:

“Self help methods of responding to or defending eviction cases have spelled doom for almost all tenants who have tried that system.  It is like drinking salt water when you are thirsty.  It may help for the moment, but things will only get worse.”   

There is much more of the same on TLC’s Using Self Help page. And, yes, these are the “good guys” who work in a “community clinic,” and not the big, bad bar associations we decried in a prior posting.  We hope the pro se practitioners out there in California will tell us whether things are as bad as the Tenants Legal Center of San Diego would have us believe.  Aren’t the Landlord/Tenant materials provided by the California Court Self-Help website adequate for the needs of most tenants facing eviction?  Isn’t the 120-page Tenant Rights Guide from the Department of Consumer Affairs a worthwhile resource?  Has TLC merely used hyperbole to sell its unbundled services?  Or have they gone too far to scare up business from clients who went to their website hoping to find objective advice about the self-help option?

p.s.  TLC has compiled a useful page of links to National and Global Tenants’ Rights materials, listing many statues and guides from across the country and the oceans.