shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress

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.

TVCAlert reported yesterday (Jan. 9, 2007), that “BRB Publications, the leading publisher of public record information in the U.S.,” started BRB’s Public Record Blog in December.  The weblog “provides information about new government databases, changes in law or procedures for retrieving public records, pertinent lawsuits, proposed relevant new laws, and more.” [update (Feb. 26, 2007):  PRB’s Public Records Blog offers a useful Essential Checklist When Using Public Record Retrievers.  The list will help you clarify just what you’re looking for and help make sure your expectations and those of the hired retriever are in sync before the research begins. TVCAlert points out “Of course, the one big question not on this list that you will want to ask the retriever is ‘what is the cost?’  This answer cannot be determined until the ten items are clear to both parties.”]

  If you want to learn more about doing public records searching (or virtually any kind of research online — especially legal), shlep suggests that you take advantage of the resources available at The Virtual Chase, which is sponored by Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, and under the direction of Genie Tyburski.  The Virtual Chase Introduction to Public Records Research has an important word of caution about using public records:

“[P]lease note that the online records often contain much less information than what you can find on-site in the supporting documentation. According to BRB Publications’ Public Records Online, 5th edition, only 35 percent of public records are available online, and many of these contain insufficient information for verification purposes. Moreover, data in the online records is often erroneous. To be certain you have found information about the right person, you should verify it with the source.”  

That said, you can find extensive, annotated links to Tools for Finding and Actual Sources of Public Records and Public Information at The Virtual Chase website.  Their Editor’s Choice for finding public records is the BRB Free Resource Center, which describes itself as “a comprehensive and searchable list of free public record sites along with additional tools to locate sources for civil records, criminal records, driving records, real estate records, public record vendors, record retrievers, legislation and more.”  TVC lists and describes many other public records tools and data bases, many of which charge for access to informaiton.

p.s.  Jeff Severn at Consumer Law & Policy Blog recently asked “Should Data On Complaints About Auto Safety and Defects Be Publicly Available?”  (Jan. 8, 2007)

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:

To make it easier to find collections of links that shlep has produced on specific subjects or areas of the law, we now have a permanent Topics (a to z) Link in our SideBar, near the top of the homepage.   Since the list is made by hand and culled by the Editor, please excuse any oversights (now or in the future).

 As we say on that Topics Page: Please note: This is not a listing of every topic or area of law that has been covered on this weblog.  Our Search Box can help you locate particular subject areas, as well as additional treatment of topics listed on the Topics Page.

My web travels today brought me to a number of glossaries that looked worth sharing with shlep‘s readers.  It seems like a good time to bring together all of the glossaries that have already been mentioned at this weblog.  

Specialized Glossaries 

• Accounting Terms Every Businessperson Should Know – from Nolo.com
• Antitrust Glossary by Charles E. Mueller
• Antitrust/Competition Glossary – the EC Directorate-General for Competition
• Bankruptcy Dictionary [Canada] – by bankruptcyCanada.com 
• Community Association Glossary [condo, coops, etc.] – from Community Associations Institute
• Family Law Glossary – by the Montgomery Law firm, Cary, NC
• Financial Glossary – from MoneyGlossary.com
• Payday Loan glossary of terms – from Payday Loan Times
• Privacy Online Glossary – from BBB OnLine
• Real Estate Terminology (18-pp pdf) — from the Federal Trade Commision
• Wills and Estate Planning Glossary – from Nolo.com

General Legal Glossaries and Dictionaries

• California Self-Help Center Glossary of Legal Terms –
• Law.com’s Legal Dictionary –  
• Duhaime’s Canadian Law Dictionary –
• Multilingual Legal Glossary [Canada] – Vancouver Community College; thousands of plain-language definitions of terms used in court (in English, Chinese, Farsi, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish, Vietnamese — from science to cop jargon, to drug slang)
• NY CourtHelp‘s Glossary of Common Legal Terms –
• Everybody’s Law Dictionary – from Nolo.com –  (hundreds of plain-English definitions, “from the common to the bizarre”)

 p.s. As always, we invite readers to use our Comment feature to tell us of relevant resouces to add to our list.

If you know the concept, but not its legal terminology or nomenclature, you might try the OneLook Reverse Dictionary.

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. 

A couple of weeks ago I saw that a friend had written about my book (Practicing Reference: Thoughts for Librarians and Legal Researchers) on the SIU Law Library’s blog (Law Dawg Blawg). (The friend is Diane Murley, the coauthor of the self-help law bibliography we’ve mentioned here.) That’s nice, I thought. And then I thought: why don’t I tell people about it myself? I’m a blogger too, aren’t I?

I haven’t written before because I try to stick to the mission of the blog, and my book is not on the surface about self-help law. But I am pleased that it’s out — and, come to think of it, parts of it are quite relevant to shlep. So I will go ahead and blow my own horn.

The book is a collection of my columns from Law Library Journal. As it happens, the very first one I wrote, “Golf Buddy Reference Questions” (chapter 8 of the book) was about the policy most law librarians have of not giving legal advice. We don’t tell people what the law is, but help them use the library’s resources (and online resources) to look it up themselves. That policy can be baffling to members of the public. After all, if you call your local public library and ask how tall Mt. McKinley is, the librarian will look it up and tell you 20,320 ft. Why are legal questions different?

Other chapters would be helpful for people who help the public find legal information — not just reference librarians, but also court support staff and others. Chapter 1, “Finding Out What They Want to Know” is a good place to start. And Chapter 4, “On Asking for Help,” discusses reasons why some patrons are reluctant to ask for help and how librarians can help them anyway. Chapter 9, “On Having a Bad Day,” talks about the lives of reference librarians — but it’s applicable to everyone really.

The last third of the book discusses research techniques, challenges, and sources. Anyone who does legal research could find these chapters helpful. Chapter 24, “When Judges Scold Lawyers,” explores cases when judges chew out attorneys for sloppy research or bad writing, and the lessons there are equally applicable to the self-represented. And since we’re all online, I’ll also mention Chapter 22, “Cool Web Sites.”

Most of the columns are available on Law Library Journal‘s website as they were originally published. So why bother with the book? It brings them together in one place, and they’re updated them with some new material.

So, there it is, my little bugle call — ta-daaa! I have a book out!

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). 

HALT has created a free, 9-page, online guide Living Trusts: A Primer to help you decide whether a living trust is a good fit in your estate planning.  Property placed in a living trust passes directly to your beneficiaries without first having to go through probate. “This brochure explains how trusts work, describes different kinds of trusts and mentions things you should keep in mind when considering whether to create a trust for your assets.”

The topics covered include:

• What is a living trust?
• Should I create a trust?
• What are the major benefits of a revocable living trust?
• Will a living trust reduce taxes?
• What information is included in a living trust?
• How do I put my assets into a trust?
• How will my assets be distributed?
• Does a trust shield my assets from creditors?
• What are special-purpose trusts?
• How can I create a living trust?
• Does a living trust cover all my estate planning needs?  

 Note: The HALT brochure gives an appropriate warning about “Living Trust Mills” and Scams:

“While living trusts are great estate planning tools, they’re not for everyone.Take your time making your decision and base it on information you get from a reputable source such as one of the do-it-yourself living trust products recommended by HALT, a financial advisor, or an estate planning attorney. If you have been a victim of a living trust scam or someone is pressuring you to purchase a trust, contact your state or local consumer protection office, a local office of the Better Business Bureau, or the Federal Trade Commission at 877-FTC-HELP. 

You can learn more about Living Trusts at Nolo.com, where you’ll find a Living Trust FAQ, and information on how and why to avoid probate.  

p.s.  You may not need a living trust, but everyone needs a Living Will — to make your end-of-life care wishes known in writing.  Even if you aren’t the “New-Year’s-Resolution-type” of person, shlep urges you to resolve to create (or, if needed, amend) a Living Will and Health Care Proxy before Valentine’s Day, for your own peace of mind and that of your loved ones.  To make it easy, HALT has brought together links to forms for every state.

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.]

One service we hope to provide even more of in 2007 is the aggregation of links on specific topics that may be of use or interest to do-it-yourself legal consumers, or to people who want to be smarter clients, know more about their rights and duties, or avoid trouble or bad outcomes related to specific laws or consumer issues. (Of course, our SideBar always has links to sources and materials for many self-help situations, especially those that are aimed at pro se litigants.)

  Here is an alphabetical list of link collections we have created since shlep officially launched on October 1, 2006.  As always, we urge visitors to use the Comment section that accompanies each posting to tell us of additional relevant recources.

• antitrust law
• bankruptcy self-help
• businesses in financial trouble
• copy permission and copyfraud 
• defamation
• dogs and the law 
• fair use and copyright law 
• grandparent (kinship) guardianship 
• grandparent visitation
• guardianship (adult)
• holiday family court disputes
• holiday-season (and internet) shopping information 
• identity theft, security freezes  
• name (and gender) changes (here, too) 
• land use & zoning, neighbor disputes
• probate & pro se (from f/k/a)
• pre-marital agreements, living together 
• real estate unbundling and self-help
• search engine privacy 
• wills

  The following posts collected links to court-related self-help issues:

• appellate pro se guidance
• helping the pro se defendant  
• looking good in court 
• unbundling at the courthouse 

   If you want to know more about the kinds of services and projects that exist to help persons who appear in court without a lawyer, see the materials discussed in our posting on court-related self-help tools and the best practices for the self-represented.  For help in finding such services in your state or locality, see our getting self-help help page, and the list of self-help Gateways in the SideBar.