RESULTS OF A NATIONAL SURVEY OF PRO SE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS: A PRELIMINARY REPORT*

By Beth Lynch Murphy 1

Copyright American Judicature Society, 2000.  This update was prepared under a grant from the State Justice Institute (SJI-99-N-042-U00-1).  The views expressed do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the American Judicature Society or the State Justice Institute. 

State teams invited to the 1999 National Conference on Pro Se Litigation responded overwhelmingly to a pre-conference survey about pro se assistance programs.  Two sets of questionnaires were designed to gather information about both statewide initiatives by state supreme courts or state judicial councils to establish statewide programs to assist self-represented litigants, and about local pro-se assistance programs delivering services at the state court trial level.

The pre-conference survey was sent to state court administrators in the 51 states and to Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands to elicit the statewide information. Thirty-seven had responded by September 24, 1999.  Another set of questionnaires was sent to each state team leader seeking information about at least three local pro se programs in their respective states.  As of September 27, 1999, 45 states responded with detailed information about 152 programs.

STATEWIDE INITIATIVES

The survey identified twenty statewide initiatives that, with the exception of North Dakota whose statewide program began in the 1980’s, are relatively recent phenomena.  Responding to the ever-increasing number of self-represented litigants, the remaining 19—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah and Vermont—have initiated during the 1990s a range of programs to assist pro se litigants.  Though each state initiative is unique, most programs are sponsored by the state supreme court, and have as one of their major goals developing uniform policies and practices governing legal assistance and maximizing access to justice for persons who choose to represent themselves in local state trial courts.  See Table 1 for profiles of statewide programs.

Legal Authority

Some state initiatives are the direct result of legislation, like the Family Law Facilitator Act in California that created an Office of a Family Law Facilitator in every superior court in all California counties, and the Florida Supreme Court Family Law Rule of Procedure that governs the activities of self-help programs under the auspices of local courts. Others are established by supreme court order, as in Vermont, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, and Michigan, for example.  Other states like North Dakota and New Mexico authorize a broad range of activities through their state’s administrative office of the courts.  Realizing that there is no one way to enhance access to the courts, most state initiatives are the result of the combined efforts of the state legislature, the state supreme court and the state court administrative office

Local Implementation

Sponsors of statewide initiatives recognize the importance of maintaining local control of assistance programs to coincide with the legal environment and the population of self-represented litigants specific to each court jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the majority of state initiatives manifest themselves at the local trial court level and provide varied services extending from providing standard forms and instructions, to court concierge desks and self-help booths, to fully staffed offices of pro se personnel.  Only a handful of states operate and manage a program through the supreme court or the administrative office of the courts, and filter it through local trial courts. For example, the state court administrator in North Dakota develops and provides written materials to state trial courts, while a steering committee of the Florida Supreme Court has developed and recommended over 500 pages of self-help forms for use at the local trial level.  The state of Utah operates 5 kiosks throughout the state for the electronic preparation of court documents. Otherwise, the state initiative is a directive to the local courts to establish a pro se assistance program that matches the needs of the particular jurisdiction while addressing the more compelling statewide problems of self-representation.

Funding Source

The funding of the programs is varied and reflects the sponsorship of the program. The majority of programs authorize some state funds to partially support the local programs, but primarily rely upon local court and/or county financing for most services and activities.  Five of the reporting states, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Michigan and New Mexico, have received State Justice Institute grants to establish pilot projects to test and evaluate innovative programs.  Only two states, Delaware and Pennsylvania, report receiving funding from their state bar associations.

The issue of providing services to self-represented litigants is extremely complex, for it falls within the broader context of providing equal access to the courts for all a state’s citizenry.  Realizing this, several states report the establishment of committees to study, in general, the delivery of legal services with a special emphasis on the needs of pro se litigants.  For example, Indiana has formed regional committees to draft plans to provide local pro bono services to indigent clients, and Pennsylvania has created a task force on the delivery of legal services to indigent persons that invariably will encompass the issue of self-represented litigants.  In addition to SJI support, Idaho pilot projects have received funding from the state department of health and social services to help accommodate the pro se litigant with a full range of services.  Collaboration with other agencies concerned with legal access, e.g., legal services programs, law school clinics, and community outreach centers, is a priority among our state respondents.

LOCAL PRO SE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Over 95% of the respondents report that there has been an increase in pro se litigation in their courts in the last five years.2 Although the majority said that the increase is moderate, about twenty percent indicate that the increase has been dramatic.  According to our respondents, family law matters have witnessed the greatest increase in pro se litigants and, with the creation of unified family courts, more individuals are seeking to resolve multi-issue disputes in child custody, support, and related domestic problems.  We, therefore, see most of these local pro se programs originating in the 1990s with the majority after 1997.  One hundred and six of the programs started after 1995.  Those programs that have been around the longest are remnants or spin-offs from the earlier legal services programs of the 1960’s.  In addition, some programs are organizational components of a larger court system, such as the small claims court in Chicago that deals primarily with pro se litigants.  Many of the most recent programs, including a 1999 startup date in Idaho, and a year 2000 startup in Hawaii, are pilot projects that will be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in responding to the needs of pro se litigants and the courts before further funding is authorized.

The average annual caseload reported by our respondents is about 11,485, with some programs reportedly handling as many as 72,000 cases and as few as 110.  The figures are somewhat misleading though, because some of the reporting programs are full service legal assistance programs, whereas others are small operations in rural jurisdictions.  How the program keeps its statistics is, likewise, relevant in reporting caseloads since many programs count each contact with each individual as a ‘‘case,’’ and we know that family law matters are intertwined so that each client can have multiple issues to resolve.  It should also be noted that these caseload figures represent the respondents’ estimates rather than actual statistics kept by the program.  Nonetheless, the figures suggest the extraordinary numbers of persons seeking pro se assistance and the multiple issues pro se litigants bring to court. 

Again, based on estimates rather than on official statistics, our respondents provide a profile of the individuals who use their programs.  The typical person is a woman with at least a high school diploma who is seeking assistance for the first time in matters related to divorce.  Excluding the domestic violence assistance programs that report a total female clientele, over 50% of the programs reporting said that well over 60% of their clients are women, with many programs reporting a rate of as high as 95%.  Similar figures emerge when estimating the educational level of the programs’ clients.  Most of our respondents indicate that at least 80% of their clients have a high school diploma; however, many thought that one-fifth of their clients had some college, though few report any more than 10% with a college degree or more.  Over 70% of the respondents estimate that three quarters of their clients are first time users of their program and only a handful said that the majority of their clients regularly use their services.

Local trial court jurisdictions have responded in a variety of creative and thoughtful ways to these reported increases in persons who elect to represent themselves in court.  State teams have identified 152 local pro se assistance programs that run the gamut from informal, ad hoc operations to system-wide responses.  These responses reflect the justice system’s efforts to provide quality assistance to self-represented litigants.  From these survey results we have developed a national composite of pro se assistance programs to help planners devise their own programs to assure that pro se litigants have access to the necessary information and services to enable them to use the courts effectively and efficiently.  Tables 2, 3 and 4 provide detailed information on the organization, staffing and funding of each of these programs.

Why Help Self-Represented Litigants?

Before describing these pro se programs, we report responses to the question, ‘‘What triggered the establishment of the program?’’  Without exception, respondents indicate that it is the increase in the numbers of pro se litigants in their respective jurisdictions that has caused them to initiate some action to relieve the noticeable pressures on the judges, court personnel and other litigants.  Our respondents indicate that nowhere is this more apparent than in the family courts that handle the full range of family law matters, including divorce, domestic abuse, child support and child custody.  In fact, one respondent indicated that in his/her jurisdiction over 70% of the litigants in family law represent themselves.

Other factors reported to trigger the initiation of pro se programs include delays in courtroom proceedings, overburdened clerks’ offices and poorly prepared pleadings and papers, frustrated judges attempting to remain neutral and impartial while attending to the legal needs of the pro se litigants, and disgruntled attorneys who have had to deal with opposing parties not represented by counsel.  Several programs, in Michigan and Massachusetts, for example, said that the enactment of new legislation creating ‘‘new crimes,’’ e.g., stalking, and granting jurisdiction to local courts in matters heretofore not handled by local trial courts, such as the issuance of restraining orders, have increased the burden upon the courts to adjudicate disputes in which litigants are typically not represented by counsel.  In contrast, a couple of jurisdictions report the lack of enabling legislation as a major hindrance, because they have had to rely upon local resources to engender support and generate funds for the development of assistance programs.

Major Barriers to Assisting Self-Represented Litigants

Despite the obvious obstacles to initiating pro se programs in local trial courts, i.e., funding and personnel, our respondents describe other barriers, like the lack of physical space.  But they also cite some less tangible reasons, like the lack of support from the bar and the judiciary, as major impediments to getting a pro se program up and running.  These respondents said that the bar’s perception that the assistance program would deprive private attorneys of clients, and the judiciary’s own reluctance to accept pro se programs for fear of promoting the concept of ‘‘self-representation’’ were equally disadvantageous to program development.  A couple of programs in states where the judges are elected even mentioned the judiciary’s fear of losing bar support if they promoted and administered a pro se program in their court.

Addressing the Barriers

For some states, overcoming these obstacles has been ongoing and indigenous to pro-gram development and operation.  Bar involvement, judicial sponsorship and public education are necessary to the initiation and continued existence of pro se assistance programs.  Most states report that outreach and personal contact with the bar and the judiciary assured the necessary support by providing information to allay the fears of each constituent.  For example, many states have provided statistics to the private bar to illustrate that the majority of pro se litigants cannot, in fact, afford representation.  Similarly, reluctant court personnel, including judges, have become advocates of the pro se programs once they see actual reductions in court delays, in poorly prepared litigants and in denied access to the courts.  Education and training of all persons involved in providing pro se assistance are likewise high priorities in assuring acceptance of the program.  But none is more important than the determination and perseverance reported by our respondents in the planning and implementation stages of pro-gram development.

Common Case Types

The programs we surveyed demonstrate the range of services provided.  The vast majority provide assistance to litigants in the full panoply of family law matters, including child support and custody, divorce and domestic abuse.  While most of our respondents provide services in divorce cases—77 % of them said they do so—only a handful of these programs handle divorce matters to the exclusion of other matters, and very few report they handle no divorce cases.

The next most frequently mentioned areas of assisting pro se litigants by our respondents are child custody and support, which naturally are related to divorce cases.  What becomes evident from our respondents is that it has become exceedingly important to provide multiple services to these litigants in family court because of the myriad of issues accompanying divorces where children are involved.  Our respondents report providing services in a variety of divorce-related cases, such as guardianship, health insurance issues, visitation, name change, and so on.

Over half of the programs provide assistance in domestic abuse cases.  These same programs help petitioners obtain orders of protection, and most work closely with related social service agencies to resolve the many problems associated with domestic abuse.  Many programs report that they provide assistance in related areas of parental kidnapping, visitation, spousal support, and paternity.  Our respondents made it very clear that there are endless areas of disputes requiring assistance in the family courts, and that these same litigants often need additional help in resolving administrative issues, such as driver’s license restoration, and birth certificate corrections.

Eight of the programs indicate that they provide pro se assistance only in nonfamily law matters.  Most of these programs operate out of specialized courts, for example, housing and small claims courts, and in some instances are part of a larger legal services program in the area.

Geographical Areas Served

Approximately half of the assistance programs reported serve areas with mixed urban, rural and suburban populations.  This is not surprising since many of the local programs reported in our survey serve geographical areas that are coterminous with county populations with varying mixes of metropolitan and rural/suburban areas. Another quarter of the programs provide assistance exclusively to rural areas, and about twenty percent to only urban areas.  Very few of the programs represented in our survey provide assistance only in suburban areas.

Program Costs and Funding

Although the budget figures provided by the respondents may be inflated because the scope of services offered by each program is so varied, they nevertheless illustrate the range of funds available for pro se assistance programs. The average reported budget for our survey respondents is $150,455 with reported extremes of a 1.3 million dollars for the Family Law Facilitator in Los Angeles County, to as low as $750 for the Friend of the Court program in rural Caro, Michigan.  That results in an average cost per case for the programs represented in our survey of $13.10.

The source of funds for these pro se programs is varied.  About twenty-eight local programs receive their funding exclusively from the local trial court’s budget as well as another twenty-four entirely from the state.  The remaining programs receive funding from multiple sources including the federal government, private grants and foundations, other state agencies, like the departments of health and human resources, and the Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts.  In California, the state provides partial funding to each county superior court and the local court provides supplementary funds for the Family Law Facilitator program.  Several programs operate with funds from the local bar associations and law schools to conduct legal clinics, like the Volunteer Attorneys for Rural Nevadans, and to provide volunteer attorneys, like the Volunteer Lawyer for the Day Program in Suffolk, Massachusetts.  Eight programs rely upon the fees they charge their clients, (e.g., purchasing forms and pleadings), or upon ‘‘tuition’’ charged for clinics and other self-help education programs for the pro se litigants

Few pro se programs are exclusively administered by the state—the statewide respondents indicated the importance of local control of the programs—and often are run by a combination of partners.  Only seven programs report that the state—usually the administrative office of the court—administers the local program; four programs are run exclusively by the bar association and three are administered by one of the local law schools.  Ninety-three local trial courts are reported to be in charge of their pro se programs and among these programs, 11 are assisted by their local bar association and one by the local law school.

Partnerships

Local trial court control of the day-to-day operations of the pro se assistance program does not exclude the participation of other groups, such as bar associations, law schools, social service agencies, and nonprofit groups.  Many pro se programs collaborate with these other constituents to assure visibility and support for the program, and to promote and expand the services they offer.  Many programs collaborate with community social service agencies so that they can serve the multi-faceted problems of their clients.  For instance, The New York Office of the Self-Represented works closely with a network of service agencies for women to serve the multiple needs that arise in the course of a domestic violence case.  As Table 2 illustrates, very few programs, twenty-three, report having no partners, while the majority of programs report having multiple partners.  The nature of the services provided and the source of a program’s funding tend to facilitate partnerships with other agencies.  This is especially true in multi-issue cases.  So programs that assist persons in domestic violence actions tend to partner with social service agencies assisting battered women, for example, as well as with shelters and welfare agencies.

Services Provided

Our respondents provide detailed information about the services that they offer to pro se litigants (see Tables 3 and 4). The programs range from minimal assistance—providing forms and instructions for completion—to elaborate offices staffed with full-time legal and nonlegal staff.  Some programs rely primarily upon volunteers—law school clinical assistance and pro bono programs—while others utilize the already existing staff of a clerk’s office and still other programs employ outside staff, such as paralegals, court coordinators, and lawyers, to mention a few.

Although the vast majority of programs provide a wide range of services, the following categories generally describe the nature and scope of the programs in our survey:

Self-Help Centers—These centers typically provide core services —distributing educational materials, brochures and informational packets; assisting in filling out forms and drafting pleadings; providing access to computer terminals with Website connections; and making referrals to other resources for legal and social services.  Several centers also offer seminars and workshops in specialized areas to explain the procedural aspects of cases or to walk clients through the filing of a complaint.  Some centers are staffed with lawyers, some provide volunteer lawyers at a reduced fee, and others rely upon trained clerical and paralegal staff to operate the center.

The Self-Service Center operated by the Superior Court of Maricopa County is probably the most notable.  In addition to providing forms and instructions to users, it makes extensive use of technology, especially providing access to an interactive website for clients to fill out forms.  In a pilot project in Hawaii, the center is referred to a Customer Service Center where court users can obtain brochures and forms off the racks and obtain personalized information regarding procedures and forms.  Another is the Arapahoe County Resource Center in Colorado that is equipped with computers and a vast array of reference materials, community resources manuals, and legal aid listings.  Here, videos, e.g., ‘‘A Guide to Pro Se Divorce,’’ are available for viewing in both English and Spanish.

Family Law Facilitators—Each superior court in California is equipped with a family law facilitator—some are attorneys—who provides assistance to litigants in a range of issues arising in family court.  Authorized legislatively, these offices not only offer a variety of services—including assistance with child support, spousal support, and health insurance issues—but they expedite the processing of cases through the family court.  Other jurisdictions have developed similar family law facilitator programs, alternately referred to as court coordinators, which provide a whole host of services including the collection of statistics for effective case management.

In Washington State, courthouse facilitators provide direct assistance to the self-represented in family law cases and act as guides to justice system procedures.  In Illinois, facilitators volunteer to staff a desk near the post decree divorce courtrooms.  The facilitator is an experienced matrimonial attorney who will listen to both parties and make recommendations to the judge.

Bar, Pro Bono and Lawyer-Referral Programs—As the number of the pro se litigants increases and the issues they need to resolve become more complex, assistance programs have incorporated pro bono services and lawyer referrals.  In collaboration with legal services pro-grams, law school clinics and bar associations, our respondents describe an array of pro bono programs designed to meet the needs of pro se litigants.  These programs range from simple referrals to organized legal services programs to well-structured bar and law school programs that operate offices at the local court or through clinics and ‘‘advice desks’’ located elsewhere.

For example, the Baton Rouge Bar Foundation Pro Bono Project has a panel of 4300 volunteer attorneys who provide legal assistance.  The project also includes a divorce work-shop and a docket preference for pro bono attorneys.  The project coordinates and staffs an ‘‘Ask a Lawyer Clinic’’ in the community and helps with referrals to local social service agencies.  Similarly, in Maine, the Pine Tree Legal Assistance Courthouse Assistance Project provides phone assistance in family law matters that do not meet the requirements for referral to the private bar, and provides on site assistance to pro se litigants.

Several programs utilize clinics and/or video technology to convey information to the self-represented litigant.  For instance, the Toledo Bar Association offers a two-hour program with a video to guide clients through filling out the proper forms and then provides assistance in the actual preparation of the forms.  The Black Women Lawyers Pro Bono Clinic in Tarrant County, Texas, offers a divorce clinic that encompasses intake, lawyer-client interviews, and drafting and filing of divorce suits for uncontested divorces.  Later, pro bono attorneys prove the case up and volunteer clerks certify and confirm the pleadings.

Some programs screen cases and make appropriate referrals to lawyers and/or social service agencies.  In Utah, a ‘‘Tuesday Night Bar’’ group meets in five areas throughout the state to provide one-half hour of free legal assistance from volunteer attorneys and referral information in cases requiring additional assistance.  There is a pro bono hotline operated by Central Virginia Legal Aid that permits clients to talk to pro bono attorneys by telephone and to receive legal advice.  Sometimes they are later scheduled for office appointments and if they are found to not be eligible for their free legal services, they are given advice on how to proceed pro se.

Pro Se Clinics—Many of the full service assistance programs offer clinics in conjunction with other services to educate the litigants,—including filling out, serving and responding to pleadings and court orders.  In contrast, some of the reported pro se programs in our survey offer clinics exclusively to litigants without any other attendant services.  The overwhelming majority of clinics described by our respondents are concerned with conveying sufficient in-formation to the attendees so that they can obtain their own divorce.

Many clinics rely upon volunteer attorneys to conduct the classes, and in some instances, require the attorneys to attend specialized training in the area covered.  In one case, the Montana State Law Library Advice Clinic gives continuing legal education credits to the participating attorneys, who are employed by the state.  The Family Law Clinic of the Legal Aid Society of Charleston provides a step-by-step walk through the entire process of obtaining a divorce, after which the participants fill out their own forms and file them in the clerk’s office.  Interestingly, the program mails a ‘‘satisfaction survey’’ to about 10% of its clinic’s customers.  Local law firms host divorce clinics in the Baton Rouge City Court, and the local bar holds clinics twice a month to answer questions about filing dissolution, custody and support actions in the El Paso, Colorado, Combined Court.

Technology-Based Assistance—Several of our respondents report innovative programs using technology to service the needs of pro se litigants.  Respondents report only one program using kiosks for litigants to fill out forms and initiate actions.  In Utah, a statewide project has placed five kiosks throughout the state to assist the pro se civil litigant in the preparation of documents through electronic means in uncontested divorces and landlord/tenant actions.  However, Utah has begun to develop a web-based automated system that will allow greater geographical access and will phase out the kiosks in 2000.  Missouri is pilot testing a remote electronic filing system for adult abuse matters.  Called ‘‘Quickfile,’’ it enables shelter advocates to help victims complete petitions on-line, through a designated Internet homepage, and submit them to court. Judges receive the information through email and respond through this medium regarding approval/denial of the ex-parte order of protection.  If the project is successful, there are plans to implement it statewide.

Telephone hotlines also can provide needed access to persons seeking information on how to proceed with pro se matters.  A Court Information Line in Utah provides a toll free phone line that is answered during business hours by the trained staff in the state administrative office of the courts, who have computer access to docket information in all general jurisdiction trial court cases.  The availability of this phone line is prominently posted in all court-houses throughout the state.  Another interesting hotline, operated by Hamilton County, Ohio, Pro Seniors, Inc., provides information to senior citizens in matters of special interest, e.g., health-care directives, wills and estates, and Medicare and Medicaid issues.

Summary and Reported Benefits of Pro Se Assistance Programs

What we have learned from the respondents to our survey is that the majority of pro se assistance programs are relatively recent developments responding to the ever-increasing number of self-represented litigants in our courts.  These reported increases in pro se litigants are most visible in the family courts, especially in areas of divorce and related issues such as child custody and support.  Though our survey notes primarily the emergence of programs to handle these family law matters, there appears to be program development in other areas like land-lord/tenant actions and small claims civil courts.  What we see in this survey are new and exciting assistance programs that provide help across a broad range of issues, offer a variety of services, and serve the multiple needs of its clientele.  A number of these assistance programs are full service agencies providing one-stop access to the justice system with linkages to other community based agencies to serve the legal, social and psychological needs of the self-represented litigant.

All of our respondents report that public access to the courts, especially for indigent and low-to-medium income litigants has increased as a result of their pro se assistance programs.  The availability of court-approved forms and instructions, informational services and free legal clinics, and referrals to legal and social service programs has improved the delivery of information to the public and the quality and uniformity in the pleadings filed, according to our respondents.  Many respondents also report that their program relieves judicial assistants and clerks from dealing with the needs of pro se litigants, thus allowing them to concentrate on their regular duties.  Similarly, our program reporters indicate that there are now fewer documents being rejected by the court, which reduces the litigants’ frustration with the court system, and further eases judges’ and court staff’s workload.  Many said that the litigants are ‘‘profoundly grateful’’ for the assistance that permitted them to see their case through to completion.  Counter staff are likewise grateful because now they have a ‘‘place’’ or a ‘‘person’’ to refer the pro se litigants to for advice and assistance.

An unexpected benefit to the court system, according to our respondents, is that pro se assistance programs provide case management assistance, especially in family courts.  The assistance programs help move cases expeditiously through the system by providing one person(s) to shepherd the case to its conclusion. he litigant need not go to different courts or courtrooms in the same facility to obtain assistance on the multiple issues related to his/her case.  This case management benefit assures that cases are moved through the system in a timely manner and has reduced the need for cases to be continued or, in some cases, dismissed without relief.  For the litigants, who are now advised of problems with their case, this means fewer rescheduled hearings due to missed or incomplete pleadings and documents and the prompt resolution of their case. For the court, there is the assurance that self-represented litigants are properly informed, prepared, and readied for the resolution of their case.  Everyone in the system benefits.

Footnotes

1. Ms. Murphy is a research associate with the American Judicature Society

2. These data are based on the respondents’ best estimates, since most of the programs do not keep official statistics.