Upload
margaretmargaret-freeman
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 2
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.
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 3
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 4
I. Challenge and OpportunityA. Numbers, Impact, and Access
B. Leadership
C. Public Trust and Confidence
D. Broader View of Court’s Mission
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 5
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 6
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 7
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 8
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 9
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 10
II. Innovation Overview
A. Before Court Innovations
B. Courtroom Innovations
C. After Court Innovations
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 11
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)
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 12
• 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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 13
Court Staff Guidelines
• California• Florida• Idaho• Iowa• Michigan• Missouri• New Mexico
• New Jersey• New York• North Dakota• Utah• Wisconsin• Federal Judicial Center
training materials
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 14
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 15
B. Introduction to the Courtroom Innovations
• Clarification of Judicial Neutrality• Clarification of Evidence Issues• Courtroom Services• Judicial Education Programs
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 16
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 17
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:
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 18
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 19
Courtroom Services
• Attorney in the Courtroom• Legal Aid in the Courtroom• Immediate Printed Orders
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 20
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?
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 21
SRLN Best Practices Document – 2nd Edition
• Forty-two innovations • Each includes Concepts, Attributes,
Examples, Contacts, and Resources• Valuable resource for ideas,
connections, and resources
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 22
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 23
III. A
Big City – Comprehensive Services
Los Angeles
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 24
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 25
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 26
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.
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 27
Neutrality• No attorney client relationship
• No confidentiality
• No advocacy
• Equal treatment under equal circumstances
• Comparable services for parties on either side of a case
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 28
Self Sufficiency
• Education
– about procedures
– about options
• Assisted self help commensurate with the litigant’s capacity
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 29
Active Management of Cases
• Access = completion of the case
• Caseflow management
• Integration with court operations
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 30
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 31
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 32
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 33
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 34
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 35
Integration with Operations and Case Flow Management
• Management of the pace of cases
• Efficient for court and SRL
• Smart management
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 36
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.
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 37
III. B
Immigrant-Borderland County
Imperial County, CA
(Video Segment 1-A Available)
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 38
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 39
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 40
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 41
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 42
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 43
Imperial Lessons• Anticipating resistance• Biases that may be manifested• Cultural Competency• Planning• Opportunities• Finding Similarities
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 44
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 45
III. C
Comprehensive Statewide Example
Maryland
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 46
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 47
Maryland Statewide Caseload
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 48
Maryland SHC Case Type
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 49
Maryland SHC Users Income
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 50
III. D
Integrated Comprehensive Services
Hennepin County, MN (Minneapolis)
Video Segment 2-A Available
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 51
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 52
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.
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 53
Hennepin Front Desk
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 54
Hennepin Center Webpage
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Preparation Draft Slide 54
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 55
III. E
Poor Rural Statewide
Montana
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 56
Montana Need
• Need study by Bar• Needs analysis shows extent and impact
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 57
Montana Planning and Building
• Planning and coalition building• Legislation passed with bipartisan support
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 58
Montana Programs
• Deployment• Two Centers• Several Mini-Grants• Automated Forms Partnerships
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 59
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 60
III. F
Bar Integration Example
Massachusetts Unbundling
(Video Segment 11-A Available)
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 61
Massachusetts Unbundling Beginnings
• Steering Committee and National Research• Needs Analysis• Developing Consensus and Bringing
Opposition on Board• Standing Order to address concerns
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 62
Massachusetts Unbundling Overview
• Pilot Project in Unbundling• Attorney Training Critical• Evaluation Results show very broad
satisfaction from litigants, judge, staff• Attorneys wanted more cases
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 63
Attorneys Honored by Mass Supreme Judicial Court
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 64
III.G
Law Library Partnering
Travis County (Austin, Texas)
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 65
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.
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 66
Court – Library partnership:Solution:
Good Forms
+ Step-by-Step Information
+ Attorney review of forms
= Enforceable Orders
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 67
Court – Library partnership:
A family law
Self-Help Center
staffed by librarians
and reference attorneys.
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 68
Court – Library partnership:
A reference librarian conducts a reference interview in person or by phone.
How does it work?
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 69
Court – Library partnership:
Librarians make appointments with reference attorneys to review SRL’s forms prior to court.
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 70
Court – Library Partnership:
At Uncontested Dockets --
Reference attorneys review forms again at uncontested dockets and prepare this checklist for the judge.
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 71
Website–Library Partnership
• Indexing• Outreach• Information sources• Web layout• Plain language• What patrons need
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 72
Putting it Together: a central information and referral source
Travis CountyLaw Library
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 73
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 74
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 75
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 76
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.
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 77
Efficiency as Motivator• Some see these innovations as
bringing efficiency – cost effective approaches, less waste
• Reduction of continuances, wasted hearings, needless filings, etc.
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 78
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 79
VI. Self-Assessment and Strategic Choice
• Surveying• Focus Groups• Tour• Best Practice Comparison• Multiple Tools Available
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 80
VII. Funding ApproachesA. National Funding
B. Internal Funding
C. Local Partner and Foundation Funding
D. State Court Funding
E. State Legislative Funding
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 81
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 82
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 83
C. Local Partner and Foundation Funding
• Local government• Local foundations• Legal aid and access to justice• General public libraries
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 84
D. State Court Funding• Internal leadership• Dependant upon internal budget processes
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 85
E. State Legislative Funding
• Leadership power of state court• Constituency issues for legislature• Difficulty in talking about savings• (Video 2-B available)
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 86
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 87
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 88
Using the Modules
• At formal events• As leadership discussion opportunities• With stakeholders• As planning and planning launch tools
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 89
IX. Highlighted General Resources
• Selfhelpsupport.org – on web• Best Practices Document – Second Version• Assessment Toolkit• Resources Guide with Package
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 90
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
Module 1: Models and Self-Assessment -- Self-Represented Litigation Leadership Package Conference Version Slide 91
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