Traveling justice: providing court based pro se assistance to limited access communities.

• Author: Rasnow, Tina L.
• Position: Ventura County, California

INTRODUCTION

A soft morning mist rises from the citrus orchards along the road. Just a hint of fall chill brushes the Ventura County Superior Court's Mobile Self-Help Center as it winds its way to the career center in Santa Paula, California. Located fifteen miles from the main courthouse in Ventura, Santa Paula is separated from the county government seat by more than Santa Clara Valley and the ring of mountains dividing it from the coastal communities. The 28,598 residents of this 126-year-old community are also separated by time, language, culture, and a lack of public transportation. Providing access to court and related services is a challenge for California courts, as changing demographics and economic conditions create greater access needs even as legal aid funding decreases.

Recent surveys conducted by the National Center for State Courts (1) and the American Judicature Society (2) have found a disconcerting lack of public confidence in the court system. Lack of equal access to the justice system was found to significantly contribute to this decline in public trust. (3) What services should a court provide to help ensure equal access? How does the expanded role of courts impact issues of impartiality, independence, and public trust in the judicial system? Courts grapple with these questions in seeking to provide court access to communities that are marginalized through geography, language, culture, and poverty. This article focuses on one Southern California court's attempt to provide greater access to underrepresented litigants in a mixed urban and rural county northwest of Los Angeles. It will explore Ventura County Superior Court's outreach program designed to increase court access through pro se self-help services, educational outreach, specialty courts, and collaboration with social service organizations.

1. ACCESS TO THE COURT

   1. Right to Counsel in Criminal Cases

      Our adversarial justice system is based on the premise that each side has competent legal counsel. (4) Trained professionals present evidence within a complex system of rules. Ideally, the trier of fact decides the case based strictly on statutory law and case precedent. (5) That one needs expertise to navigate this complex system has long been recognized by the courts. (6) Legal precedent ensures that those charged with violating the law where the penalty may result in the loss of liberty are entitled to court appointed legal counsel if they cannot afford to hire a private attorney. (7) The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution (8) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as requiring that court appointed counsel be provided to indigent criminal defendants, and that any waiver of the right to counsel by an accused must be knowingly made and understood. (9)

      The right to court appointed counsel for the indigent has been extended to dependency cases, where parents face the potential loss of parental rights due to allegations of abuse or neglect. (10) Again, the Due Process Clause has been interpreted to protect the right to parent one's children. (11) Those faced with a loss of that right are assigned court appointed counsel if they cannot afford an attorney. (12)

   2. Right to Counsel in Civil Cases

      A more difficult question arises in civil matters where a party cannot afford to hire legal counsel. To what extent should counsel be appointed? For the most part, courts have not appointed legal counsel in civil matters. A possible exception involves the placement of minors in probate or guardianship proceedings where the judge thinks the minor should be represented by his or her own attorney. (13) Dicta in some civil cases has recognized the need for court appointed counsel where the party could not appear on his or her own behalf, such as in child support and paternity cases (14) or cases where the civil plaintiff or defendant is incarcerated. (15) For the most part, however, courts and legislatures have been reluctant to mandate court appointed counsel in civil cases. This is largely because of the potential cost to the system.

      Some civil forums are specifically designed for pro se litigants, such as small claims court. Many disputes, however, are not suited for resolution in such forums. The amount in controversy or the injunctive relief sought is often beyond the court's limited jurisdiction. (16) Self-represented litigants in a formal court setting find themselves in a minefield of complex rules and procedures. Add to this a power and equity imbalance when one side is represented by counsel and the other is not. (17) Yet, traditionally courts have been reluctant to intercede on behalf of unrepresented litigants. (18)

      As a result of the surge in the number of unrepresented litigants, courts have begun to take a more proactive role in assisting those without legal counsel. (19) Ventura County Superior Court's innovative approach recognizes that having competent legal counsel in adversarial proceedings is the best way to achieve justice. Court-run self-help programs, however, remain a key to expanding people's access to justice.

2. EVOLUTION OF VENTURA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT'S SELF-HELP PROGRAMS

   1. Family Law Assistance

      In 1996, Ventura County Superior Court opened its first Family Law Pro Se Clinic to assist pro se litigants in family law cases. (20) This early clinic operated one evening a week and depended entirely on volunteer attorneys and court staff willing to assist people after the close of court business. The clinic operated in the courthouse's jury assembly room and children's waiting room. Assistant executive officer Florence Prushan was initially concerned that people would not come to the clinic. (21) Her fears were quickly dispelled, however, when 200 people came seeking assistance. (22) The clinic soon had to limit the number served each Tuesday evening to the first seventy-five people to arrive, causing people to queue up early, often while the court was still conducting its regular business for the day. (23)

      In 1996 California enacted Family Code section 10002. (24) The law established an Office of the Family Law facilitator in all fifty-eight counties. The law also mandated that each trial court develop a family law facilitator program to assist pro se litigants with child support issues. Eleven million dollars per year in state funding was allocated for this purpose. (25) Some courts limited their family law facilitator program to child support enforcement matters. (26) Ventura used the funding to expand its volunteer evening clinic to a day program that operates during regular court hours. (27) Unlike many courts, Ventura does not limit its assistance to child support matters. It assists with all areas of family law including legal separation, divorce, child custody, spousal support, annulment, paternity, and grandparent visitation. Additionally, Ventura assists with civil harassment and domestic violence restraining orders. (28) As a result of the Family Law Self-Help Center, family law reported a significant reduction in the time it took them to hear the pro se calendar because the litigants were appearing in court better prepared. (29) Court processing clerks and document examiners also reported a marked improvement in the quality of the pleadings filed by self-represented litigants, resulting in fewer rejections of papers due to procedural errors. (30)

   2. Court Assistance With Non-Family Law Matters

      A young father comes into the Ventura County Superior Court clutching a summons and complaint in an unlawful detainer case. He was served with the papers over the weekend and needs to know what to do to prevent the eviction. He urgently explains to the court clerk that his child has leukemia and that he was recently laid off. If he loses his housing he is out on the street. The clerk gently assures the young man that he can get help in the court's Self-Help Legal Access Center. Upon arrival at the Center the father is greeted and asked to complete an intake form to identify the nature of his legal matter. He then reads and signs a disclosure acknowledging that there are no confidential communications with staff attorneys and that no legal advice is given in the Center. After he completes the intake form, Center staff provide him with court forms and step-by-step instructions, in case he chooses to file a response to the complaint. Staff also provide information about substantive landlord/tenant law so he can understand that personal hardship may not be a legal defense to an eviction based on failure to pay rent. The staff, however, provides the young father with referral information to other community programs that may be able to provide the back rent and persuade the landlord to accept it, or in lieu thereof, to help locate alternative housing. (31)

      Soon after the Family Law Pro Se Clinic opened, the court expressed concern that pro se litigants in matters other than family law had difficulty accessing forms or understanding procedures involving guardianship of minors, name changes, step-parent adoptions, and unlawful detainers. (32) Adding these areas of law to the overburdened family law self-help program would detract from the program's purpose. The Honorable Charles Campbell, presiding judge, concluded that in order to provide assistance to the public in other civil areas, a new program would have to be segregated from the family law program. Otherwise, the overwhelming demand for help with family law matters would defeat attempts to provide assistance in other fields. (33) Thus, in 1997 the court hired a full time senior attorney to coordinate its first Self-Help Legal Access Center for matters other than family law. The SHLA (pronounced "Sheila" after the court's executive officer Sheila Gonzalez) Center opened its doors on January 5, 1998 in a space that used to be the court's collection department. (34) Located adjacent to the court's main lobby and jury assembly room, the SHLA Center...