Assisted Pro Se Domestic Law Project
On February 6, 1995, the University of Maryland and the
University of Baltimore Schools of Law, with financial support
from the Maryland Court of Appeals, inaugurated an innovative
project to provide law student assistance to pro se
litigants in four Maryland jurisdictions: Baltimore City, and
Baltimore, Montgomery, and Anne Arundel Counties.
From the inception of the Project, detailed information has
been collected about the individuals receiving services from the
project. The purpose of the evaluation effort has been to
determine whether, and under what conditions, self-representation
in domestic matters is an effective strategy for increasing
access to the legal system, without compromising the parties
perception that they have received a fair result and without
imposing additional burdens on the judicial system.
In order to further evaluate the impact of the services
offered by the Pro Se Family Law Project, an outcome evaluation
was designed by the Project Staff and conducted under the
supervision of Dr. Ray Paternoster, Professor in the Institute of
Criminology at the University of Maryland, College Park. This
evaluation was supported by funds provided by the Maryland Legal
Services Corporation. . This evaluation was based on telephone
interviews conducted with 275 clients of the program from
January, 1995, until February 1996. In addition, the research
staff of Dr. Paternoster conducted interviews with judges and
masters in Anne Arundel and Montgomery counties to determine
their impressions of the project.
The Problem
The number of family and domestic filings in the Circuit Court
of Maryland has increased steadily and now constitutes fifty
percent of all cases filings. The State-Wide Advisory Council on
Family Legal Needs of Low Income Persons completed a
comprehensive study entitled, "Increasing Access to Justice
for Maryland's Families." The Committee's research indicated
that one of the major problems low income individuals face is
lack of access to information about domestic legal rights and
remedies. A low income client may identify an organization that
can provide information, such as the court clerk's office or a
community organization, but the subsequent course of events is
very uncertain. Resources often cannot provide legal information
and advice because of lack of training or knowledge, because of
legal mandates, or because of limited staff availability.
A related problem for low income clients is lack of access to
legal representation. Other studies have confirmed the
wide-spread nature of this problem. The ABA report :Civil
Justice: An Agenda of the 1990s" indicate that even though
per capita income increased in the 1980s, the cost of basic needs
spiraled leaving increased numbers of moderate income and poor
people unable to afford personal legal services. It is well
documented that only a small percentage of the family law needs
of low and moderate income persons are met.
This project is designed to address the need for providing
service to pro se litigants in domestic cases in the Maryland
court system. An effective solution to providing assistance to
the pro se litigant is a system whereby attorneys become
involved at critical points in the process, without imposing on
the transaction such excessive costs that make the transaction
becomes prohibitive. Designing such a system requires a
re-thinking of the role of the attorney, the client, and
non-lawyer support staff. This re-thinking process can lead to
new delivery systems for legal services that are responsive to
unmet legal needs of the community and the need of the judiciary
for order and just resolution of conflicts. Empowering clients to
effectively represent themselves with accurate and timely legal
information, and simplified pleading forms is one approach to
creating a process that provides increased access without
increasing costs.
Project Summary and Findings
Since February 6, 1995, University of Maryland clinical law
students have been providing assistance to pro se
litigants in Anne Arundel, Montgomery Counties, and the City of
Baltimore. By June 30, 1996,over 4,400 individuals will
have been served by the project in these two counties and the
City of Baltimore.
The central finding of the research study is that pro se
litigants were very satisfied the experience in representing
themselves and with the outcome of the process. A significant
number would represent themselves again and not seek the
assistance of an attorney. The data from the Evaluation Study
supports the conclusion that assisted pro se services are
an important mechanism for providing access to the legal system
for a broad range of individuals who cannot, or do not want to,
retain the services of an attorney. We were able to construct a
profile of the pro se clients that benefited the most from
the provided services.
In both Montgomery and Anne Arundel counties the person who
would represent themselves again is one who is slightly higher
income, slightly higher education, slightly younger, This group
reports being more satisfied with the project and court personnel
and with the fairness of both procedures and outcome. The profile
in both counties is not dependent on the type of case.
The survey population as well as the entire target group
contains a relatively lower percentage of very low-income
clients. (In the survey sample, only 18% of those surveyed of 50
individuals had household incomes under $10,000). The data
suggests that the lowest income client group, which is also
likely to have the lowest educational levels, is the least
satisfied with the self-representation. Ironically, it is the
lowest income cohort that may need the services of a lawyer the
most, and it is this population group that is going to experience
a severe cutback in the level of legal services because of the
projected reduction in federal funds and limitations on federal
funds that prohibit the use of federal legal service funds for
divorce cases.
Conclusion
The future is ominous in the sense that the population group
that is least able to take advantage of a pro se approach
is also being deprived of traditional subsidized legal aid
services. The coming wide-spread inability of the poor to
secure effective representation in civil domestic relations
matters, jeopardizes the integrity of the entire judicial system.
| 
