Be A Shlep!
One of my favorite blogging buddies, David Giacalone, on a partial blogging hiatus as f/k/a, has resurfaced again with a new proposed blog, shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress. As the name reflects, shlep will provide commentary on and resources for pro se litigation. From the introductory post:
Self-Help Law deserves its own weblog. It is too important a right for consumers, a vital movement, and a growing virtual and realworld reality, to be outside the spotlight of the blogosphere and the weblogger community. (See Movement/ Shmovement below, plus our About page) Indeed, if weblogs are even half as important in the world of legal services as everybody* says, it may be malpractice for consumer advocates, proponents of universal access to justice, law-and-technology gurus, or law firm management mavens to start the day without seeking a weblog dose of pro se and self-help news and punditry.
Should solos and small firms care about the growing pro se trend? Absolutely. Since many of us practice on the front lines of litigation, we'll often meet litigants with small matters that don't warrant the cost of hiring a lawyer or who are uncomfortable with the cost of an attorney and would prefer to handle the matter themselves. Rather than criticize these clients as stupid or short sighted (which many lawyers are apt to do when clients seek not to hire them), we should at least educate them on the pro se process. Perhaps, clients will then decide to proceed pro se or perhaps they won't, but at least we can assist them in making an informed decision. But to do that, we lawyers need to educate ourselves on the pro se practice as well - and that's what David's site will help us do.
Educating on pro se practice can also reduce the cost of litigation, not just for the pro se, but for all involved. Because pro se litigants are not familiar with the court process, it may take longer for paying clients and cost them more money, or result in this kind of conduct. We should develop ways to improve the quality of pro se litigation.
Of course, the only problem with shlep is that David Giacalone is pro se: he needs assistance from other bloggers to ensure the success of this new venture. Contact David at shlep if you're interested.
Carolyn, Thank you for a very generous and insightful post. I've been planning to send you the following excerpt from Civil Legal Assistance for All Americans: The Report of the Harvard Law School Bellow-Sacks Project on the Future of Access to Civil Legal Services (at 29 - 30, 2005, text 64 pp., pdf), but this might be a great place to get this important message to solo and small-firm practitioners, with the hope that you and they will follow up on the national and local levels.
"By far, the private barâs greatest contribution to meeting the legal needs of low- and moderate-income people is representing them on a fee-for-service basis. The ABA legal needs study documented that the private bar represents three times as many poor clients as the staffed legal aid offices funded by government and private charities.
"We know little about the scope and quality of service provided or about the actual practices, efficiencies, pricing and routines of lawyers in small and medium firms. Therefore it is difficult to assess whether the fee-for-service sector might become a more significant and effective provider of assistance. What we do know from anecdotal reports is that many lawyers in solo and small firm practices offer reduced fee or âlow bonoâ service to clients who cannot afford market rates and that many idealistic law graduates look for ways to include low- and moderate-income clients in sustainable community law practices. We also know that the private bar has produced important innovations such as unbundled legal services that are accessible to low- and moderate-income clients.
"It is noteworthy and puzzling that public policymakers and legal services advocates have focused almost exclusively on the staffed, not-for-profit legal aid offices and paid little attention to the dominant role of the private bar in serving low- and moderate-income people, except when the private bar provides pro bono services.
"In the long run, a full-access system will benefit by recognizing the important contributions of the private bar and by making investments to enhance the capacity of private providers to offer quality service to lowand moderate-income consumers. Policymakers and bar leaders should evaluate the extent to which investments in the efficiency and capacity of the private bar will improve its ability to provide good-quality, affordable legal assistance to low- and moderate-income people. Private sector innovations such as unbundled legal services and collaborative lawyering should be encouraged and objectively evaluated for cost and quality effectiveness.
"Technology will likely play an important role, but strong case and law office management as well as improved professional development for lawyers may be needed. An expanded delivery system might develop internships or clerkships to train law students and recent law school graduates in best practices for cost- and quality-effective service delivery."
I know you have voiced similar sentiments, Carolyn. Do you think the organized bar is smart enough to listen?
I'm so glad you've posted about the increasing pro se trend. I clerked for a judge this summer, and was just blown away by the number of cases -- civil and criminal -- in which people had resorted to self-representation. Fortunately, some states are designing programs to address these needs (e.g., pro se clerks and kiosks in courthouses).
These services will no doubt be of great use for people who are too "wealthy" to qualify for legal services, but too poor to be able to afford a private attorney.
Here's another site to add to the repertoire: Self-Help Support
LM :)
gohan x dragonball