Unaffordable, Unavailable Justice Eyed

If you've ever watched someone who wasn't an attorney represent himself in a court of law, it's like watching a driver who doesn't know he's lost repeatedly picking dead-end streets as he tries to make it to his destination.

With each new round of questions, the effort starts with hope but almost inevitably ends up with the judge finding the self-representer out of order, clashing with the court's rules of evidence and procedure.

WHAT'S THE POINT?

The evaluation of how our civil justice system works and doesn't work is critically important to the impartial administration of justice. We're pleased Arkansas has a commission to analyze the issues.

It is a brutally frustrating experience for anyone unfamiliar with how courts work. It's why the old proverb suggests anyone who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.

Plus people who self-represent aren't as funny as subjects for jokes, but we digress.

The Access to Justice Commission, created by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2003, evaluates the civil justice system. That includes issues such as child custody, contested divorces, home foreclosures and other litigation.

The commission's surveys of the state's circuit judges, who can hear both criminal and civil cases, showed when Arkansans represent themselves, they most often lose.

It's a big concern for poorer areas of the state, where lawyers are much harder to come by than in, for example, Fayetteville, where you can't roll a bed down Dickson Street without hitting 20 or 30 members of the bar -- as in association, not drinking establishment.

The major concern, naturally, is whether people who cannot afford an attorney can get the same level of justice the more wealthy people in Arkansas can get. Can a justice system even call itself that if, before the case even reaches the courtroom, the odds are stacked against one party? Last we checked, having money doesn't always make one right. Last we checked, being poor doesn't mean you can't be wronged.

The state does recognize many Arkansans have legal troubles but cannot afford an attorney. Two agencies -- Legal Aid of Arkansas and the Center for Arkansas Legal Services -- are designed to help the state's poverty-stricken residents in civil disputes. And, of course, advocates for those agencies say their staffs are too small to serve everyone even if they do qualify.

In less populated areas of the state, the commission says, the trouble can be simply finding an attorney. Some advocates suggest the state provide incentives such as paying off student loans for new lawyers to work in under-served areas, much like some states do with doctors, dentists or veterinarians. Another concept is allowing lawyers to provide "Limited Scope Representation" at lower costs to help a client prepare for their day in court, where they would still represent themselves. This approach appears to offer the best of both worlds, but some might suggest there's still half a fool involved.

Litigation is expensive. Indeed, it is among the most costly of ways to settle any dispute. The best advice is to carry on one's business in such a way that litigation is avoided, but if it were so easy, every community wouldn't have structures dedicated to housing judges, juries, clerks and trials.

We're glad to see this Arkansas commission exploring the issues that create barriers to justice. Whatever the court system is, it can only operate effectively if everyone walking through the courtroom door has the same opportunity to present his or her best arguments and can expect an impartial determination of the outcome.

Anything less is less than justice.

Commentary on 03/27/2014

Upcoming Events