module 1: models and self-assessment -- self-represented litigation leadership package conference...

Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 1

Court Leadership and Self-Represented Litigation:

Solutions for Access, Effectiveness, and Efficiency

Prepared by the Self-Represented Litigation NetworkGeneral Package Editor: Richard Zorza

Copyright 2008, National Center for State Courts

Developed by the Self-Represented Litigation Network with funding from the California and Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts, and also co-sponsored by the National Judicial College, the National Center for

State Courts, the Harvard Law School Bellow-Sacks Project on the Future of Access to Civil Justice, and the American Judicature Society.Points of view and opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Center for State Courts or of any co-

sponsor or of any participant in, or funder of, the Self Represented Litigation Network.


Module 1: Challenge, Models, Court Self-Diagnosis, and

Strategies for Getting a Court Moving

Prepared by the Working Groups of the Self-Represented Litigation Network Special thanks to Bonnie Browning, Montana; Jose Guillen, Imperial County, CA;

Susan Ledray, Hennepin County, MN; Sandra Lundy, Massachusetts; Pamela Ortiz, Maryland AOC; Tara Veazey, Montana Legal Services.

Note: Included WebPages, photos, profiles, materials may be copyrighted by the website or author.


OutlineI. The Self-Represented Litigant Challenge

and OpportunityII. Innovation OverviewIII. Some ModelsIV. General Approach to InnovationV. Strategies for MotivatingVI. Self-Assessment and PlanningVII. Funding IssuesVIII.Tools


I. Challenge and OpportunityA. Numbers, Impact, and Access

B. Leadership

C. Public Trust and Confidence

D. Broader View of Court’s Mission


A. Numbers, Impact, and Access Innovation Potential

• Examples of numbers – Nationally about 50% of cases – Far higher in some geographic

and substantive areas• Cost and delay• Aggravation & non-optimum results• Impact on system & on constituencies• Opportunity for system improvement

impacting all groups


B. The Challenge to Leadership in the Context of the Access Crisis

• An overwhelmed system• A near dead end in increase in resources for legal aid for the poor• A huge middle income service gap• Lawyers without adequate income• Judges feeling unappreciated• Court staff feel overwhelmed and uncertain of role• Public dissatisfaction


C. Impact on Public Trust and Confidence, and Beyond

• Lack of confidence in access• Lack of confidence in outcomes• Impact on legislature, budgets, etc.• Problems impact all groups• Solutions to these problems will be seen

and will give courts legitimacy and flexibility

to respond to other challenges too


D. Leading to Opportunity in a Broader View of the Courts’ Mission

• The Role of Courts• 2002 CCJ/COSCA Joint Resolution 31• Self-Represented Litigation Network• ABA Model Code and Harvard Judicial

Conference• The Role of Bar, Legal Aid and Community

Organizations and Agencies


Number of Requests to NCSC for Technical Assistance on SRL Matters

15 19 23 25 16

78

165

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Increasing Attention and Energy


II. Innovation Overview

A. Before Court Innovations

B. Courtroom Innovations

C. After Court Innovations


A. Introduction to the “Before Court” Innovations

• Self-Help Centers (130 Listed in 2006 Directory)• Guidelines for Court Staff (Over One Third of

States)• Ethics Training for Court Staff (Many states)• Websites (Almost All States have Access Sites)• Forms, Document Assembly, and Customer

Friendly E-Filing• Concierge Desk• Caseflow Management Innovation and Integration• Discrete Task Representation (Unbundling)


• Alaska• Arizona• California• Colorado• Connecticut• Delaware• District of Columbia• Florida • Georgia• Hawaii• Idaho• Illinois• Indiana• Maryland • Massachusetts

Over Thirty States with In-Court or Virtual Self Help Centers

• Michigan• Minnesota• Montana• Nebraska• Nevada• New Hampshire • New York• North Carolina • Pennsylvania• Tennessee • Texas• Utah• Vermont• Washington• West Virginia• Wisconsin


Court Staff Guidelines

• California• Florida• Idaho• Iowa• Michigan• Missouri• New Mexico

• New Jersey• New York• North Dakota• Utah• Wisconsin• Federal Judicial Center

training materials


The Critical Role of Forms Standardization

• Relationship to Centers and Services• Relationship to Discrete Task Assistance and Pro Bono• Relationship to Judicial Change• Relationship to Web, Document Assembly and E-Filing• National Document Server Initiative and SJI-Funded Circuit Rider


B. Introduction to the Courtroom Innovations

• Clarification of Judicial Neutrality• Clarification of Evidence Issues• Courtroom Services• Judicial Education Programs


Judicial Neutrality Engagement v. Disengagement

Engaged• Creates environment in

which all relevant facts are shared

• Engages parties, as needed, to bring out facts & their foundation

• Ensures neutrality by ensuring each side tells full story

Disengaged• Leaves it to parties to get

their evidence and foundations before the court

• Does not engage parties, but rules only on motions and objections

• Relies on the balance of the system to ensure neutrality


New ABA Code Commentary Underlines Judicial Discretion

[4] It is not a violation of this Rule, however, for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.

Rule 2.2 Impartiality* and FairnessRule 2.2 Impartiality* and FairnessA judge shall uphold the law and shall A judge shall uphold the law and shall decide all cases with impartiality and decide all cases with impartiality and fairness. Comment:fairness. Comment:


From the Research: Components for Judicial Communication

1. Court staff (modeled by judge) create environment

2. The judge sets the stage

3. The judge questions to find out what he or she needs to know

4. The judge makes the decision

5. The judge makes sure decision is understood

6. The judge lays groundwork for next steps or hearings & compliance


Courtroom Services

• Attorney in the Courtroom• Legal Aid in the Courtroom• Immediate Printed Orders


C. “After Court” Innovations

• The Problem is low compliance with orders• Solutions include:

– Compliance Assistance Materials– Compliance Assistance Support from a Center– Courtroom Data Gathering and Expectation

Setting– Adjusting The System for Compliance

• Ultimate Question: Whose responsibility is it?


SRLN Best Practices Document – 2nd Edition

• Forty-two innovations • Each includes Concepts, Attributes,

Examples, Contacts, and Resources• Valuable resource for ideas,

connections, and resources


III. Innovation Models

A. Big City, Los Angeles

B. Borderland, Imperial County

C. Statewide Comprehensive, Maryland

D. Integrated Comprehensive, Hennepin MN

E. Rural Small State, Montana

F. Bar Integration, Massachusetts

G. Law Library Partnership, Travis TX


III. A

Big City – Comprehensive Services

Los Angeles


Los AngelesOverview

• Size of Need• Starting with Centers and Information• Adding Workshops• Adding Document and Forms• Adding Justice Corps• Adding Court Caseflow and Courtroom

Support• Impact on court


Key decisions to be made in designing SRL services:

• Core values for self help services should be articulated

• The service delivery model should be developed in response to the core values and service needs– how, what and where


Core Values• Preserving the court’s neutrality is

imperative.

• Matters impacting children and families are most important.

• Self-help services should be provided at a level commensurate with litigant capacity and case complexity.

• Active management of cases is a central responsibility of the court.


Neutrality• No attorney client relationship

• No confidentiality

• No advocacy

• Equal treatment under equal circumstances

• Comparable services for parties on either side of a case


Self Sufficiency

• Education

– about procedures

– about options

• Assisted self help commensurate with the litigant’s capacity


Active Management of Cases

• Access = completion of the case

• Caseflow management

• Integration with court operations


Maximize Service to Majority Based on Service Priorities

• Cost effective• need the capacity to serve

large numbers • need to cover a large

geographic area• efficient use of public funds

• Prioritize based on impact of court’s decisions• matters affecting children

and families• matters involving health

and safety


L. A. Service Delivery Model:

• Education• Assistance provided at the most efficient level

possible • Effective community partnerships• Integration with operations and case flow

management assistance provided at the most efficient level possible

• Integration with operations and case flow management


Education

• Neutral & cost effective • Encourages self sufficiency,

coordinates with case management• Workshop format

– maximum impact with minimum expenditure of staff resources

– more conducive to educating than one-one-one– peer support– integrated use of technology – schedule in synch with case management needs


Provide Assistance at the Most Efficient Level Possible

• Cost effective and encourages self sufficiency • Hierarchy of professionals

– use of interns (JusticeCorps)• provides a language capacity not otherwise possible

– paralegals supervised by attorneys– clerical tasks handled by clerical staff

• Triage for level of service needs– complexity of issues– capacity of SRL– nexus with service priorities


Effective Community Partnerships• Coordinate with case management, cost effective • Valuable resource• Complimentary but different mandate

– representation, – high impact cases– independent voice

• note areas of needed change• different perspective

• Integrate with court SRL services– minimize duplication of services– maximize information available to partners about court

procedures– partnership meetings & pro per provider meetings


Integration with Operations and Case Flow Management

• Management of the pace of cases

• Efficient for court and SRL

• Smart management


The Los Angeles model is the result of our need to serve a very large population, but it also is

the result of an examination of our values.• We have made conscious choices based on our values and

the community we serve.• The court must be neutral to serve SRL effectively. • Self sufficiency benefits the SRL and the court.• The resultant model meets the needs of the court and of the

litigants, and these needs are closely intertwined. • Active management of the flow of cases maximizes the

ability of SRL’s to complete the process and it increases the efficiency of the court.

• Maximized services to the majority decreases the possibility of anyone being shut out of the justice process.


III. B

Immigrant-Borderland County

Imperial County, CA

(Video Segment 1-A Available)


Imperial’s Challenges• County on a fortified border• Immigrants may not understand our

legal system and may fear our courts • Immigrants may not understand English• Lowest per capita income county in California,

with highest unemployment (17%)• Third fastest growing population in CA


Additional Environmental Challenges

• Anti-immigrant sentiment• Initiatives to limit access• Impact of narco-terrorism in Mexico and along the

US/Mexico border • Makes it easier to display bias against ethnic groups,

thus eroding equal protection, public trust and confidence

• We may suspect that the country of origin has lower standards than the US in terms of: access to justice, procedural fairness, human rights, lacking amenities

• Also, we must ensure our court staff is diverse


Implementing Changes

• Judicial support is key• Before asking for judicial support, make an

honest assessment of your organizational culture (values, principles)

• Demonstrate need. A selling point: impact on case flow management

• Prepare for resistance


Imperial’s Program• Court has interns from UABC, Mexicali,

serving in the court• Interns help address problems that arise in

dual jurisdictions – and facilitate learning about each other’s legal systems, processes, rights and responsibilities

• Court tries to meet judicial officers from the immigrants’ home jurisdiction in order to facilitate handling of dual jurisdiction cases


The Imperial Partnerships• Mexican Consulate • Interagency Steering Committee: made up of county

justice, health, social and correctional partners• Quechan Tribe: large reservation with casino

located in county• Universidad Autonomy de Baja California,

Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico• CETYS university, Mexicali• Legislative representatives from Baja California• Center for Family Solutions and faith based services• Internship program: SDSU, UABC law school,

community college


Imperial Lessons• Anticipating resistance• Biases that may be manifested• Cultural Competency• Planning• Opportunities• Finding Similarities


Imperial Long Term Lessons• You need to understand the judicial system from

which your court user came. Key differences may include:– Weak judicial system with limited resources and lack of

organizational capacity– Low level of public respect, and trust and confidence in the

justice system– Judicial system exercises little independence and therefore

accountability. Separate but co-equal branches of government may not exist.

– Written processes vs. oral and public proceedings, impacting access, expediency and transparency

– Weak governance structure to ensure system wide accountability and high standards


III. C

Comprehensive Statewide Example

Maryland


Maryland Overview• Initial Needs Assessment – Developed

Standard Forms as Gateway• Pilot Planning – Hotline and Pilot Centers

with Law Schools• State Deployment – Contracts and direct

staffing• Modes of Delivery – Walk in – atty. staffed

centers• Impact and Current Plans – Statewide at

County Level


Maryland Statewide Caseload


Maryland SHC Case Type


Maryland SHC Users Income


III. D

Integrated Comprehensive Services

Hennepin County, MN (Minneapolis)

Video Segment 2-A Available


Hennepin Start

• Initial needs analysis done in TQM process• Initial Program was to design forms• Wide participation from stakeholders• Self-Help Center started without new money


Hennepin Today• Current Configuration

– Two Centers– Forms, videos, automated forms, website– Screen forms before filing– Includes Pro Bono Attorney Consultation– Includes legal aid clinics– Operate a state Call Center serving all MN counties

• Impact – numbers and changed the court culture

• Integration into court management ensures that SRL impact considered in all decisions.


Hennepin Front Desk


Hennepin Center Webpage

Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Preparation Draft Slide 54


III. E

Poor Rural Statewide

Montana


Montana Need

• Need study by Bar• Needs analysis shows extent and impact


Montana Planning and Building

• Planning and coalition building• Legislation passed with bipartisan support


Montana Programs

• Deployment• Two Centers• Several Mini-Grants• Automated Forms Partnerships


Montana Long Term View

• Immediate success and impact, 1000 people in five months

• Surveys show 99% positive impact• Long Term Plans depend on future funding

and current evaluation


III. F

Bar Integration Example

Massachusetts Unbundling

(Video Segment 11-A Available)


Massachusetts Unbundling Beginnings

• Steering Committee and National Research• Needs Analysis• Developing Consensus and Bringing

Opposition on Board• Standing Order to address concerns


Massachusetts Unbundling Overview

• Pilot Project in Unbundling• Attorney Training Critical• Evaluation Results show very broad

satisfaction from litigants, judge, staff• Attorneys wanted more cases


Attorneys Honored by Mass Supreme Judicial Court


III.G

Law Library Partnering

Travis County (Austin, Texas)


Court – Library partnership:

Partnership formed for a specific purpose: to solve a problem.

Problem: Pro se litigants brought terrible forms and unenforceable orders to court.


Court – Library partnership:Solution:

Good Forms

+ Step-by-Step Information

+ Attorney review of forms

= Enforceable Orders



A family law

Self-Help Center

staffed by librarians

and reference attorneys.



A reference librarian conducts a reference interview in person or by phone.

How does it work?



Librarians make appointments with reference attorneys to review SRL’s forms prior to court.


Court – Library Partnership:

At Uncontested Dockets --

Reference attorneys review forms again at uncontested dockets and prepare this checklist for the judge.


Website–Library Partnership

• Indexing• Outreach• Information sources• Web layout• Plain language• What patrons need


Putting it Together: a central information and referral source

Travis CountyLaw Library


IV. General Approach to Innovation• Establish a vision• Do a stakeholder analysis• Assess and analyze – Who is needed?• Bring in partners• Create a plan• Develop funding strategies• Institutionalize leadership


V. Strategies for Motivating

• The Four Good Horsemen: – Access, – Effectiveness, – Efficiency– Staff and Leader Experience

• The 14 other modules will apply these

in more detail to the various

solution innovations


Access as Motivator

• For some, the core concept of access to court reminds them why they became court staff and leaders in the first place

• This is the partner motivator – likely partners have ideology of access and see the court as a tool for access


Effectiveness as Motivator• For some, these approaches make the

courts effective – gets them to do what

they are meant to do• Solve problems, deter misconduct,

resolve disputes• Orders are better, decisions are clearer etc.


Efficiency as Motivator• Some see these innovations as

bringing efficiency – cost effective approaches, less waste

• Reduction of continuances, wasted hearings, needless filings, etc.


Staff and Leadership Experience as Motivator

• For some, what makes the difference is

the day to day experience of work and leadership

• Happier litigants, shorter lines, less backlog• Happier staff, sense of fulfillment


VI. Self-Assessment and Strategic Choice

• Surveying• Focus Groups• Tour• Best Practice Comparison• Multiple Tools Available


VII. Funding ApproachesA. National Funding

B. Internal Funding

C. Local Partner and Foundation Funding

D. State Court Funding

E. State Legislative Funding


A. National Funding• SJI – needs match• LSC – technology collaborations• Federal IV-D as a wedge• SRLN Study of Federal Funding• Long term need to educate Federal

funders of impact of the SRL issue


B. Internal Funding• Can start very small• Sometimes easer to move staff than

money• Advantage is that it forces alliances and

makes it more likely that the innovation benefits the major court constituencies

• Useful to document impact on the system as a whole


C. Local Partner and Foundation Funding

• Local government• Local foundations• Legal aid and access to justice• General public libraries


D. State Court Funding• Internal leadership• Dependant upon internal budget processes


E. State Legislative Funding

• Leadership power of state court• Constituency issues for legislature• Difficulty in talking about savings• (Video 2-B available)


VIII. The Modules – Tools for Solutions

1. Court Self-Assessment, Models and Strategies for Getting a Court Moving2. Establishing and Operating Self Help Centers 3. Designing and Modifying Physical Space for Access 4. Establishing Justice Corps and Volunteer Programs 5. Training and Supporting Clerks for Access 6. Developing and Deploying Forms and Instructions 7. Deploying Automated Forms for Access 8. Setting Up Case Management for the Self-Represented 9. Working with Judicial Leadership 10. Courtroom Staffing and Services for Access 11. The Court Role in Establishing and Supporting Discrete Task Representation 12. Supporting and Integrating Law Library Services 13. Distance Service Technology 14. The Limited English Proficiency Challenge15. Developing Systems to Facilitate and Ensure Compliance with Court Orders


What the Modules Contain

• Concept and particular value• Examples• Access, efficiency, effectiveness, staff benefits• Dynamics and keys to success• Building a program: needs, partners, steps,

long term• Tools, resources, assessment• Conclusions• Sections of Activity and Resource Handbooks


Using the Modules

• At formal events• As leadership discussion opportunities• With stakeholders• As planning and planning launch tools


IX. Highlighted General Resources

• Selfhelpsupport.org – on web• Best Practices Document – Second Version• Assessment Toolkit• Resources Guide with Package


X. Suggested ActivitiesA. Discuss impact and potential of

self-represented litigant challenge on your court

B. Compare possible innovations in your court

C. Discuss strategies for motivating D. Plan general self-assessment E. Plan court tour


X. Conclusion• Self-represented litigation is the cutting

edge of innovation that impacts the whole system

• The models show wide opportunity• These innovations work for all

stakeholders, leaders, staff, litigants, the bar, the community, and local political leadership

module 1: models and self-assessment -- self-represented litigation leadership package conference...

Documents

court leadership

national center

courts legitimacy

future of access

courts missionthe role

state courtsdeveloped

national judicial college

points of view