7-22-2010 Wisconsin National:
The economic downturn has left more Americans with the daunting prospect of fighting court battles without a lawyer.
A growing number of people have found themselves in court facing costly financial proceedings such as declaring bankruptcy, fighting foreclosure and litigating employment fights. Adding to the challenge, for many: The high cost of legal representation often prompts them to go it alone.
Jillian Edgar of Brooklyn, N.Y., is one example. The 32-year-old, who says she has been unsuccessfully looking for work since October, is fighting an eviction notice that claims she owes more than $2,800.
Last week in Kings Country Housing Court, she said she didn't know the steps to take to qualify for free legal aid. Still, she said, "I think I can handle myself." Her plan: to say that she withheld rent because her apartment had fallen into disrepair.
Legal experts say many people are likely losing claims and paying penalties they could have avoided with a lawyer at their side. Litigants often don't understand the sort of evidence they need to present in legal proceedings, said Florida state Judge Claudia Isom.
She said she has seen a jump in people defending against mortgage-foreclosure proceedings without the aid of counsel, for instance, and they are "definitely at a disadvantage."
"People will gather legal information from the Internet, from friends, or leaflets at a courthouse and think, 'I can play checkers, I'm ready,' " said Raymond Brescia, a professor at Albany Law School, who has written about tenants' struggles to afford legal representation. "But when they get to court they realize it's a game of three-level chess, and they don't have the first idea of what's happening."
Legal representation is expensive, and some critics say lawyers have created quasi-monopolies in some areas that raise the cost of their services.
"You can hardly find a lawyer who charges less than $150 per hour, which is out of reach for most people," said Gillian Hadfield, a law professor at the University of Southern California.
In many areas, from immigration and family law to bankruptcy and housing disputes, she said, nonlawyer specialists could be trained to provide useful legal assistance. But nonlawyers who represent clients in court or provide other legal help face prosecution for the unauthorized practice of law, a violation of state bar rules.
"The U.S. is unusual in how restrictive the rules are on who can give you assistance in court," Ms. Hadfield said.
Many who go without a lawyer are too well off to qualify for free legal aid, even if they can't foot the bill for private lawyers, attorneys said. "The problem is growing for the middle class," said Larry Tribe, who heads the U.S. Justice Department's Access to Justice Initiative.
Most legal-aid organizations, which provide free legal services to people at or near the poverty line, have cut back as they have absorbed cuts in the funding they rely on from governmental and private sources just as demand for their services has risen. The Legal Aid Society in New York City, for instance, this year lost nearly $1.8 million in funding from its budget of about $30 million because of state and city budget cuts.
"We can only help one out of every nine people who solicit our help," said Steven Banks, the head of the organization, which assisted about one in seven people who asked for help before the recession.
There are no comprehensive statistics on how many people represent themselves in court. But nationwide, 60% of state judges reported increases in the number of civil litigants who appeared in court last year without counsel, the American Bar Association said in a July 12 survey. Parties were hurt by not having a lawyer, 62% of the surveyed judges said.
Katie Vickers, a 70-year-old Florida retiree who isn't a lawyer, said she agreed in 2008 to help a church friend petition for workers' compensation benefits. She said her friend, who didn't have an attorney, needed help typing legal documents and answering questions in court. The friend lost his claim, she said.
Now, Ms. Vickers is facing legal problems of her own. The Florida Bar filed a court petition in March claiming that Ms. Vickers had engaged in the unlicensed practice of law and should be fined $1,000.
The bar has a duty "to protect the public from incompetent or unethical representation," said Florida bar counsel Lori Holcomb. Ms. Vickers denied that she had practiced law and said she would vigorously defend herself—without a lawyer. ..Source.. NATHAN KOPPEL
July 22, 2010
More Strapped Litigants Skip Lawyers in Court
March 27, 2008
Supreme Court Hears Case Involving Mentally Ill Defendants Representing Themselves
Given the belief, whether true or not, that sex offenders are incurable, will this case affect them? See also today's Washington Post: High Court Weighs Self-Representation
3-27-2008 National:
When mentally ill defendants are found competent to stand trial, does that also mean they are competent enough to represent themselves in court?
The Supreme Court struggled with that question Wednesday during an oral argument that weighed the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation against a state's interest in not having trials "descend into farce." Along the way, some lawyer jokes were also cracked.
The issue in the case Indiana v. Edwards is whether a state may impose a higher standard of competence for self-representation than the fairly minimal test for deciding if a defendant is competent to stand trial. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Ahmad Edwards, diagnosed as a schizophrenic, was denied his right to represent himself at a 2005 trial for a department store robbery and shooting.
The trial judge had determined that while Edwards met the standard for competence to stand trial -- he understood the proceedings and could assist his lawyer -- he did not have the additional competence to represent himself.
Indiana, backed by the Justice Department, argue that in the interest of protecting both the reality and appearance of fairness and dignity of the courts, states should be allowed to set higher standards for self-representation.
"If the public sees the spectacle of a mentally ill defendant ... attempt to communicate to the jury on his own in a very delusional way, it really casts the justice system into disrepute," Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Michael Dreeben told the justices.
But Mark Stancil, the lawyer for Edwards, was just as adamant that a defendant declared competent to stand trial should be allowed to handle his or her defense.
"The expressed premise of the Sixth Amendment and of our adversarial system generally is that the defense belongs to the accused and not to the state," said Stancil of D.C.'s Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber.
Stancil said states have adequate tools, including appointment of standby counsel, to handle problems that arise.
Justice David Souter challenged Stancil on that point, asserting that "by the time standby counsel is required to take over, the damage is done."
Souter's comment, similar to concerns voiced by Justice Stephen Breyer, suggested they might favor a higher standard for self-representation in the interest of fairness.
"We've heard lots of complaints from trial judges," Breyer said. "Very disturbed people are being deprived and end up in prison because they're disturbed rather than because they're guilty."
Justice Antonin Scalia took the opposite view, arguing that if a competent defendant decides to represent himself, any resulting taint "would be his own fault."
Rather than a judge barring a defendant from self-representation before the trial starts, Scalia said, why not "wait to see whether he's going to pull it off or not?"
If a defendant can be allowed to plead guilty, Scalia added, he or she should also be allowed to make the less serious decision in favor of self-representation.
As the justices compared the attributes of self-led defense and lawyer-led representation, some jokes were probably inevitable.
When Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher suggested a test that would allow judges to bar self-representation for those who "cannot communicate coherently with the court or jury," Scalia mulled the phrase. "Cannot communicate coherently? ... I sometimes think that the lawyers cannot communicate coherently." Spectators laughed.
When Stancil noted that his client understood voir dire and other trial basics, Justice Anthony Kennedy blurted out, "There are all kinds of nuts who could get 90 percent on the bar exam." Laughter ensued, but it appeared some in the audience thought his choice of words was inappropriate.
At another point, Kennedy also said it was unrealistic to believe that some disturbed defendants would obey judges' orders to keep their arguments on track.
"They don't communicate," Kennedy said. "It's two ships passing in the night or in the case of some defendants, about five ships passing in the night." ..more.. by Law.com
