SLRN Research and Evaluation Update: Supporting an Evidence Based Approach to Meeting the Self-Represented Challenge

Transcription

1 SLRN Research and Evaluation Update: Supporting an Evidence Based Approach to Meeting the Self-Represented Challenge John Greacen, Greacen Associates, LLC, Regina, NM Bonnie Rose Hough, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Judicial Council of California, San Francisco, CA The Self-Represented Litigation Network (SRLN) conducts and supports a wide variety of research and evaluation projects throughout the country to help legal services providers, courts and others in developing and maintaining efficient and effective evidence based approaches to service delivery. Led by the Chairs of the SRLN s Research Working Group, this session will review current and upcoming projects, as well as solicit audience feedback.

2 Current Research on Self- Represented Litigants Self-Represented Litigation Network Bonnie Hough, Moderator Angela Tripp, Michigan John Greacen, New Mexico

3 Topics Completed Studies 1. ABA Study of Self Help Centers 2. Self-Represented Litigation Network State by State Census 3. National Center for Access to Justice Justice Index 4. Michigan Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Automated Divorce Documents 5. Idaho Evaluation of Informal Divorce Trials 6. Plain Language Bilingual Form Project 7. John Jay College and the Debevoise & Plimpton Law Firm preliminary study of the NY navigator program in the Bronx courthouse, looking at its impact in housing and consumer debt cases

4 Topics Studies Underway 1. NCAJ 2013 Study of Brooklyn Child Support Hearings 2. California Shriver Program Evaluation 3. Self-Represented Litigation Study of Remote Delivery of Services to Self-Represented Litigants 4. IAALS Replication of Canadian Study of Self-Represented Litigants 5. Preliminary Study of New York DIY Forms Process 6. Research on the programs in New York and Washington to train non-lawyers to provide limited legal services to self-represented litigants to be conducted jointly by the National Center for State Courts and the American Bar Foundation

5 Topics National Science Foundation grants NSF Research Award: Fairness of Proposed Stipulations in NYC Housing Court

6 ABA 2014 Self-Help Center Census livery_legal_services/ls_del_self_help_center_census.authcheckda m.pdf

7 ABA Self-Help Center Census Map of States for which Self-Help Center Surveys Were Completed

8 Findings 3.7 million people served annually. Most are staffed by five or fewer FTEs Most provide some type of in-person services, document assistance and webbased information. Most respondents reported being able to assist most of their customers. Most respondents indicated that they believed their customers would benefit from limited scope representation, though only 15% indicate that their community has a limited scope lawyer referral service panel. 58% of respondents reported that 10% or fewer of their users needed full representation. 67% of respondents reported that 25% or fewer of their users could pay the going rate for full representation.

9 Self-Represented Litigation Network 2015 State-by-State Census

10 SRLN Inventory Methodology Consumer Point of View of Court Webpages Only If we couldn t find it, it didn t exist.

11 What We Are Reviewing: State & County Forms & Instructions: language & format Are forms put in context Specific points of information on webpages Services available according to the webpage How court records are maintained Whether clerks are elected or appointed Access to appeals

12 SRL Info on State Supreme Court Homepage Link to contact info for the bar Link to contact info for legal aid Link to SRL appellate information page Link to municipal sites Link to county sites Link to help SRL find right court Link to statewide legal aid site Link to court sponsored SRL webpage Multi-lingual links Link to law library Link for access to court records Basic information about how the There is a self-help button No mention of representing yourself 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

13 Instructions about Forms Forms Laws rules regulations and Appellate Opinions Mediation How to Change your Address with the Court How to get Copies of Court Records Court Fees & How to Get a Waiver Community Resources (parent ed, financial etc.) Classes & Workshops Link to lawyer referral Link to modest means Link to unbundled Link to legal aid How to get legal advice How to get one-on-one assistance from SHC Glossary Procedural information by case type Link to law library Basic court information Information about scope of SRL services Types of Info on SRL Dedicated Page 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%

14 Types of SRL Services Website 88% Forms 86% Document Assembly 20% Helpline 35% Appointments & Walk-in services 18% 35% Workshops & classes 22%

15 Referral Services Referral to unbundled lawyers Referral to modest means lawyers Referral to pro bono attorneys Referral to legal aid Referral to the Bar Association Referral to non-legal help English Spanish % % % % % % 2

16 When the Feds Speak, Courts Listen Language access DV Child support

17 Many Courts Building Bridges to Legal Advice Clinics (often need based) Hotlines (often need based) Onsite advice (depends) In the courtroom (for everyone)

18 Using the Inventory to See Patterns Emerging

19 SRLN ATJ Tiers Tier #1 One-directional information Webpages, forms, links, glossaries, basic info, videos etc. Tier #2 Bi-directional information Helpline - basic, walk-in services, chat, , form review, connections to bi-directional help, such as mediation or legal advice Tier #3 Tools to support or provide custom services, triage to legal advice, sustainable problem solving, overall simplification Helpline comprehensive, triage tools, courtroom based pro bono projects

20 SRLN Access to Justice Self-Help Services Tiers

21 The question is changing from how many self-help centers are there, to what tier service do people have access to.

22 Self-Help Services in the States 100% access to court sponsored meaningful self-help (10) Meaningful court sponsored self-help to some counties (5) Moderate self-help via court or legal aid (27) No meaningful self-help could be found (9)

23 Characteristics of the States Robust 15 Rural & Urban Red & Blue Big & SmallCoastal & Landlocked Old & New Ethnically diverse populations Nascent 9 Rural & Urban Red & Purple Big & SmallCoastal & Landlocked Old & New Ethnically diverse populations

24 Impact 1 in 6 people in the US is a self-represented litigant each year in a newly filed case.

25 Justice Index National Center for Access to Justice

26 Evidence-Based Evaluation of Michigan s Divorce Tools for Self-Represented Litigants Angela Tripp, Project Director, Michigan Legal Help Program 220 E. Huron Street, Ann Arbor, MI (734) x 152 trippa@lsscm.org

27 Why Divorce? Number of Interviews Completed via Michigan Legal Help in 2013 Divorce Interview 36% 64% Other 35 Interviews on MLH

28 Uniform Divorce Forms

29 Data Sought How successful are litigants who use Michigan Legal Help? Where do they struggle? What do courts see as impact of Michigan Legal Help?

30 Study Design

31 Proportion of MLH Cases Types of New Divorce Cases Filed (May Nov. 2013) Percentage of New Complaints Filed 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% Attorney Represented Plaintiffs Other Self-Represented Plaintiffs Michigan Legal Help Plaintiffs 0.00% May-13 Jul-13 Sep-13 Nov-13

32 Self-Representation in MI 48% of cases in sample filed by self-represented plaintiffs 89% of defendants responding to cases filed by SRLs represented themselves 45% of defendants responding to cases filed by attorneys represented themselves 42% of cases in the sample had no attorney involvement 68% of all cases had one or more SRLs Only 3% of Plaintiffs and 1% of Defendants changed representation status Since MLH launched, 2% decrease in proportion of attorneyrepresented plaintiffs *All figures are unweighted.

33 Results: Successful Litigants Rates of Completion of Divorce Cases Judgment Dismissal Pending Attorney Represented Plaintiffs 77% 19% 4% Other Self- Represented Plaintiffs 69% 29% 2% Michigan Legal Help Plaintiffs 74% 25% 2%

34 Time to Complete Divorce Length of Time To Judgment, by Plaintiff Type Adjusted Mean Number of Days from Complaint to Judgment Attorney Represented Plaintiffs 166 Other Self-Represented Plaintiffs 155 Michigan Legal Help Plaintiffs 147

35 Types of Dismissals by Litigant Type by the parties lack of service lack of progress Litigants Using MLH 27% 41% 32% Litigants Using Other Pro Se Pleadings 26% 56% 18% Litigants Represented By Attorney 67% 16% 17% Finding: statistically significant difference in reasons for dismissal by type of litigant. Data is adjusted to control for influence of all other factors.

36 Fee Waivers and SRLs Fee Waiver Grants - All Cases Weighted No Fee Waiver Fee Waiver 22% 78% Fee Waivers by Type of Plaintiff Fee Waiver No Fee Waiver MLH Plaintiffs Other SRL Plaintiffs 28% 36% 72% 64% Attorney Represented Plaintiffs 5% 95%

37 Types of Plaintiffs with and without children Divorce with children Divorce without children Litigants Using MLH Pleadings 38% 62% Litigants Using Other Pro Se Pleadings 41% 59% Litigants with Attorneys 50% 50%

38 Complexity of Cases Case Complexity - All Cases Weighted 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not Complex - 79% Somewhat Complex - 18% Very Complex - 3% Case Complexity by Litigant Type MLH plaintiff Other SRL plaintiff Attorney represented plaintiff Very Complex 9% 17% 74% Somewhat Complex 16% 20% 65% Not Complex 29% 41% 30%

39 Impact of Complexity Percentage of Cases that Ended in Judgment (vs. dismissed or still pending) Adjusted Mean Number of Days from Complaint to Judgment Case Complexity - High 53% Case Complexity - High 248 Case Complexity - Med 85% Case Complexity - Med 187 Case Complexity - Low 71% Case Complexity - Low 146 Finding: statistically significant difference in the likelihood of reaching judgment timely, based on complexity. Data is adjusted to control for influence of all other factors.

40 Biggest Lessons 68% of divorce cases sampled had one or more self-represented litigants 42% of divorce cases sampled had no attorney involvement 72% of cases filed by SRL plaintiffs make it to judgment successfully and in less time than attorney represented cases All types of litigants use MLH Complexity is biggest single factor that affects likelihood of completion and time to complete

41 Idaho Evaluation of Informal Divorce Trials

42 Idaho Evaluation of Informal Divorce Trials Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 16(p) -- Consent and Waiver for Informal Custody Trial Suspension of the formal rules of evidence, the rules of discovery, and the normal question and answer format of trial that allows litigants to directly present their case, issues and concerns to the court The ICT model excludes cross examination The judge directs the proceeding, allowing the parties to speak, and the judge is allowed to ask parties additional questions designed to clarify and keep the testimony focused. Parties may be represented by counsel. Expectation of one day or less for trial, with the judge ruling from the bench

43 Findings -- % of parents agreeing or strongly agreeing w/ neutral w/o neutral Understood ICT 73% 81% ICT reduced conflict 35% 52% ICT was fair 56% 62% Focused on best interest of children 57% 61% Decisions made good for children 55% 60% Now better able to focus on kid s needs 42% 58% Saved me money 51% 67% Glad I decided to use ICT 57% 64%

44 Findings Perceptions of parties who said decision was or was not favorable not favorable favorable ICT was fair 0% 100% Focused on best interest of children 23% 100% Decisions made good for children 15% 100% Glad we decided to use ICT 23% 92% Judge listened to me 23% 100% Judge treated me with respect 42% 100% Better able to focus on children s needs 8% 77% ICT reduced conflict 17% 50%

45 Plain Language Bilingual Forms Project

46 Plain Language Bilingual Form Project Partners: Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Texas Law Library, Austin City Attorney Focus of this project was on Court Orders not SRL pleadings Key: court agreed to accept the plain language forms, and issued plain language English orders with Spanish translations during the pilot Large percentage of LEP residents (60%+) Comparison of number of contempt findings before and after the plain language forms were put into use

47 Findings The pre implementation group had a rate of contempt findings 3.8X that of the group receiving the Plain Language/Spanish orders. Each contempt costs approx. $4665 per victim. Total savings to the county $107,295. The results are statistically significant. This does not include savings for on demand translation of custom forms. Was the Order Violated? No Yes Missing Total Control Program Total Source: Draft Evaluation TIG Under review, will be released shortly.

48 New York Navigator Snapshot

49 Navigators in Brooklyn Housing Court and Bronx Civil Court Consumer Debt Part Services provided by trained nonlawyers to persons appearing without a lawyer: Preliminary discussion with litigants and explain the process Review and assembly of papers received by litigant and explanation of their relevance Information about court services, e.g., interpreters Descriptions of the persons in the courtroom and their roles Review of likely discussion topics and the best manner of response to each Assistance in filing out DIY forms and reference to web resources

50 Navigators in Brooklyn Housing Court and Bronx Civil Court Consumer Debt Part Services provided by trained nonlawyers to persons appearing without a lawyer: Accompaniment in court, including giving notes and reminders where and when necessary Statements of fact to the judge, but only if asked a direct factual question by the judge Taking notes to review with litigant after the hearing In Housing Court, some navigators provide additional social services, such as help in obtaining benefits to cover rent arrears when available

51 Study findings: Litigant Perspective 99% of these litigants are unrepresented Navigator spoke in court in 40% of housing cases and 47% of consumer cases 61 litigants completed surveys. 51 stated strong support for getting their questions answered, 52 for increased understanding of what was happening, and 49 that progress was being made in their case.

52 Study Findings: Judicial Perspective All three judges reported that litigants with navigators present were more comfortable, less stressed and anxious, and better prepared to provide the court with the information needed

53 Study Findings: Data Perspective Comparison of 50 Housing Court cases with navigators with a matched set of 50 cases without one. All litigants are given a list of a dozen possible defenses at the time of their appearance. Average defenses raised without navigator 1.3 Average defenses raised with navigator 4.1 Litigants assisted by navigators were ordered to pay an average of $54 less than the original landlord demand Litigants not assisted were ordered to pay an average of $121 more than the original landlord demand No difference in length of time from filing to disposition.

54 Studies in Progress

55 National Center for Access to Justice Brooklyn Magistrates Study Study of 239 child support hearings in the summer of 2013 to gauge the extent to which magistrates use nineteen practices and the relationship between the use of those practices and litigant satisfaction, time required to complete a hearing, and time required to resolve a child support case. Report is still in the final stages of editing and preparation for release.

56 California s Sargent Shriver Civil Representation Pilot Projects Pilot projects started in fiscal year services started 2/1/12 Report to the Legislature (and serious evaluation) due 2016 In the following substantive areas: Housing-related matters Guardianship of the Person or Probate Conservatorship Child Custody when a request for sole custody often involving domestic violence

57 Remote Services Study Sites Alaska statewide telephone and Internet California (Butte County) videoconferencing California (Orange County) both in-line and on-line Idaho remote delivery by courts and legal aid (virtual law office) Maryland telephone for limited jurisdiction courts Minnesota statewide telephone w/ in-person local Montana remote delivery by courts and legal aid Utah statewide telephone, text, and

58 Development of documented requirements for triaging portal Statewide single point of entry online or by phone Basic information on person and issue (including urgency) collected Algorithm sends person to cheapest service reasonably likely to provide an outcome reflecting the facts and law of the case Objective 100% access

59 Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System s Replication of the Canadian Study of Self- Represented Litigants

60 Cases Without Counsel Exploring the issue of self-representation from the litigants perspective Qualitative empirical research: One-on-one interviews with self-represented litigants in family court cases One-on-one interviews with court service providers who interact with self-represented litigants Building on Dr. Julie Macfarlane s National Self-Represented Litigants Project (NSRLP) in Canada

61 Self-Represented Litigant Interviews Qualitative Narratives: Factors leading to decision to self-represent Resources used to help with the legal process Expectations of vs. what happened in the legal process Parts of the process that worked well and/or that were stressful/difficult Impact of self-representation

62 Court Service Provider Interviews Qualitative Narratives: Motivations for self-representation Impact of self-representation Common frustrations Changes in the last 3-5 years Application of evidentiary rules

63 Cases Without Counsel

64 Preliminary Study of New York DIY Forms Process Preliminary findings to be reported during the A2J Author and online forms sessions at this conference.

65 Study of Washington LLLT and New York Navigator Programs The American Bar Foundation and the National Center for State Courts have received funding for a study of programs to train nonlawyers to provide some legal services to litigants They will develop a methodology that will be applicable to all similar programs

66 NSF 2014 Grants Nine grants of possible interest to the Access to Justice community

67 Studies of possible interest to the courts community LSS Postdoctoral Fellowship: Trust and Confidence Award Number: ; Principal Investigator: Alan Tomkins; Co- Principal Investigator: Sarah Michaels, Brian Bornstein, Lisa Pytlik Zillig, David Rottman; Organization: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Creating a State-Level Public Opinion Data Base for Law and Courts Scholarship: New Frontiers in Research on the Public's Views of Third Branch Politics Award Number: ; Principal Investigator: James Gibson; Organization:Washington University WORKSHOP: Institutional Trust and Confidence: An Interdisciplinary Workshop, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, April 24-25, 2014 Award Number: ; Principal Investigator: Brian Bornstein; Co- Principal Investigator: Elizabeth Shockley, Tess Neal, Alan Tomkins, Lisa Pytlik Zillig; Organization: University of Nebraska-Lincoln

68 Studies of possible interest to the courts community Variation in Use of Courts by Legal Status and Jurisdiction Award Number: ; Principal Investigator: Kimberly Welch; Organization:West Virginia University Research Corporation Testing a Three-Stage Model of Institutional Confidence across Branches of Government Award Number: ; Principal Investigator: Alan Tomkins; Co-Principal Investigator: Mitchel Herian, Brian Bornstein, Lisa Pytlik Zillig; Organization:University of Nebraska-Lincoln Comparative and Longitudinal Study of Experiences with Court Systems Award Number: ; Principal Investigator: Tonya Brito; Co- Principal Investigator: David Pate; Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison

69 Studies of possible interest to the courts community Collaborative Research: Lay Deployment of Professional Legal Knowledge Award Number: ; Principal Investigator: Dalie Jimenez; Organization: University of Connecticut Collaborative Research: Lay Deployment of Professional Knowledge Award Number: ; Principal Investigator: Lois Lupica; Organization: University of Southern Maine Doctoral Dissertation Research: Accessing assistance and its effect on outcomes in civil cases Award Number: ; Principal Investigator: Stephen Morgan; Co-Principal Investigator: Emily Taylor Poppe; Organization: Cornell University

70 Fairness of Proposed Stipulations in NYC Housing Court 2015 NSF Research Award: Fairness of Proposed Stipulations in NYC Housing Court Principal Investigators Larry Heuer, PhD, Barnard College, Steve Penrod, PhD, John Jay College, Project Consultant David Udell, JD, National Center for Access to Justice, The first study asks whether training judges to preserve procedural fairness in cases involving unrepresented parties can a) increase judicial engagement with the unrepresented party, b) help the unrepresented party understand the information needed in the case, and/or c) increase the unrepresented party s perception of procedural fairness and of the legitimacy of the court. The second study asks whether educating all the parties about the role of judges in preserving procedural fairness for unrepresented parties can minimize the parties possible perception of judges as biased in favor of unrepresented parties. The two studies are expected to cast light on additional underlying questions, including the following: a) do unrepresented parties views on the treatment they deserve have a bearing on their perceptions of whether the judicial processes are fair, and b) is procedural fairness as important to the parties as it is to the judges?