This week the Maine
Bar is hosting their annual meeting. This year the Bar is promoting the idea of
Access To Justice (A2J). Their idea of what Access To Justice is different than
what we would consider a consumers Access To Justice. Presented here is our
letter to the Maine Bar regarding this very sensitive issue of Justice and how
consumers are able to access this service:
This week the Maine
Bar is hosting their annual meeting. This year the Bar is promoting the idea of
Access To Justice (A2J). Their idea of what Access To Justice is different than
what we would consider a consumers Access To Justice. Presented here is our
letter to the Maine Bar regarding this very sensitive issue of Justice and how
consumers are able to access this service:
Stephen D Nelson,
Esq.
President
Maine Bar
Association
Dear Mr Nelson:
Many members of the
public are pleased to learn that the Maine
Bar Association has chosen as this year's convention theme, "Access to
Justice". We hope that this uplifting theme inspires your membership
to address the growing "Access To Justice" problem of
self-representation in Maine courts. In family courts, the statistic that
75% are 'pro se' means that the 'pro se' litigants outnumber lawyers by a wide margin, and family
courts ought to be renamed, 'pro se'
courts. The "new normal" in these courts is 'pro se'. Though 'pro se'
litigants are the majority in family courts, one would never know it from the
power dynamics as attempts to preserve the old ways prevail. And 'pro se'
litigants receive 2nd class services (or worse).
I present the
following extracts from actual cases for illustrative purposes. They are
intended as examples that illustrate the human aspect of "Access To Justice". With a 75% statistic, there are literally
hundreds of additional "access to justice" human problems. It needs
action from the bar, unless the bar is to limit its legal practice in family
courts to those with access to "money". No money, no service - except
for limited 'pro bono' charity, which, though worthwhile, doesn't seem to
reduce the 75% numbers.
Herewith samples
that put a human dimension on the 'pro se'
problems:
1.) Access to
Justice: for many 'pro se' this means
inaccessibility of access to 'pro bono"? A case example: one of many.
On several
occasions, I sought out legal services that were pro bono, or 'a la carte,' or,
in one instance, an hour consult to prepare for a 'pro se' two hour trial in which both myself and my former husband were
to be 'pro se', I was told by attorney
after attorney that neither pro bono, nor "a la carte" was an
option (not even a FREE one hour consultation).
One highly regarded
law office was so bold as to point blank state, Attorney ******* will not meet
with you because it would not be "cost effective for her". Cost
effective?
2.) Does
"Access To Justice" have to
mean bankrupting clients?
"Once a
post-judgement plaintiff and / or defendant has spent every last bit of savings
- including all retirement funds- and has liquidated all material assets (as in
my case: a home that was once the primary home for our two minor children, all
home furnishings, etc....), there will no longer be "access to
justice"?
3.) Does
Judicial Role Distortion in 'pro se'
cases mean "access to justice"? Or does judicial improvisation
signal the collapse of courts as we have known them?
"In our last
trial - as both parties were 'pro se'
- the judge did all the questioning. I was unable to cross examine. The
defendant told untruths and because the judge did not know the truth from Adam,
he had no idea when to challenge a response from the defendant. If I had an
attorney, I would have been allowed to challenge the untruths.
A few times I
objected and attempted to shed light on what was spoken as truths as being
untrue BUT I was not given the benefit to explain the "objections"
without presenting as "difficult". Being 'pro se' and without being able to counter defendants claims - there
was no access to justice on that day in court. In our first trial - with an
attorney present on both sides - "no hear-say was permitted in
court."
4.) Attorney
intimidation limits access to justice even for clients who can pay for a
lawyer.
'Sua sponte' disciplinary complaints to the Overseers, if an
attorney provides too robust a defense, is another factor limiting a client's
"Access To Justice". Even those
family court defendants who can afford a lawyer may find that their lawyer is
intimidated by threats of sanction if a defense is perceived as too robust. In
a family court system that is 75%
'pro se', an over-scrupulous concern
about how things get done, seems misplaced. What indeed are the legal
standards for a 'pro se' court? Are there any? Selective scrupulosity, using
"old normal", standard tools in a "new normal" situation
seriously limits "Access To Justice"
for clients who can pay, and, looks like a variant of the approach used to
control lawyers in Boston in the heyday of the Catholic Church scandals.
Our proposal to the Maine Bar:
We would propose
that the Maine state bar seek a legislative mandate to take immediate legal
representation responsibility for all 'pro se'
litigants in all civil courts, such as the 75% 'pro se' litigants, and that the bar make an equal, fair division of
all 'pro se' litigants, to be allocated
amongst all licensed bar members, as a condition of receiving a license to
practice law in Maine. It would solve the 'pro se'
problem pronto (and the human hardship therein), while research goes on.
Alternatively, the bar might decide to turn family courts entirely over to the 75% 'pro se', and establish a
separate court for the wealthy, full paying parties. It is rapidly
reaching that point of inflection anyway.
Yours for seeking
solutions to 'pro se' "outside of
the box"!
MeGAL
has been working for Guardian ad litem and
court reform. Access to Justice (A2J) is another part of the problem with our
Courts where over 50% of the population who consume judicial services are doing
so on their own. The Maine Bar Association is having their annual meeting and
the theme for this year is Access to Justice. Or is it? If you have had issues
with the courts, as a Pro se litigant,
represented by a lawyer who fears the courts - we ask that you contact us with
your story. We can be reached at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.
Further resources:
A2J Canada -
Canadian Bar
Canadian Forum on
Civil Justice
2013-08-13 Access to
justice in Canada ‘abysmal’: CBA Report
2014-02-05 Access tojustice: Help coming for people headed to Canada’s civil and family courts
National Center for
Access to Justice ( NCAJ )
Department of
Justice - Access To Justice
