Evie's Day in Court

Four years at university, three years of law school and eleven years of practice were not enough to win a case against Evie. Jack Campbell, Esquire had encountered women like her before. At age 29, having already made serious life mistakes, Evie was not about to let her past ruin her life.

On her day in court Evie overcame her lack of education and history of drug addiction to be awarded frequent and unsupervised timesharing with her twin five year olds. Despite the fact that her former husband had retained counsel and had insisted that he, the father, should have sole custody, the judge awarded shared parental custody. And, even though Evie had to appear with no attorney to represent her the court followed the Florida family law rules and awarded her everything she requested in her petition for modification.

Evie knew down in her soul that her life, her case, was more important to her than it was to any attorney. Her attorney, while she had one, was all about the money, and had withdrawn the minute she could no longer pay him $500. per month whether he did any work or there was any court activity or not. Opposing attorney, Campbell, seemed to want to draw things out and string things along as long as possible. Evie just wanted to see her kids more than one supervised overnight visit per month.

By the time she had her day in court, Evie had been waiting almost two years. She had voluntarily let her children live with their father so that she could have an opportunity to get a better job, make sure she could stay clean, and get a stable living arrangement. But, the father, Charles, took the opportunity to take over everything, and before she knew it Evie was obliged to pay $500 in child support even though her income was much less than Charles'.

For every short story, there is a long story. Evie had never finished high school due to her attention deficit disorder and then falling so far behind in her classes that it was too overwhelming for her to even try to catch up. After a free fall through the cracks in the system, she quit school as soon as she legally could. She drifted for a couple of years, partying with her friends, having her time, living off the parents. She went to work at one of the many bars in the beach town where she lived. Being a barmaid was a perfect fit for her outgoing personality. Smiling and flirting, fetching and carrying drinks, earning decent money. The work atmosphere was fun. Everyone worked together, Work hard – play hard was her mantra.

By age 23 she racked up two DUI's, was arrested for possession of a controlled substance (oxycodone), and married one of her regular customers, Charles. He was a couple of years older and a Marine. At first Evie was entranced and enchanted by Charles' direct approach to life and his ambition to pursue a military career. Soon after their wedding Charles received orders to relocate to north Florida, Fort Walton Beach in Okaloosa County. The honeymoon ended quickly. Charles was sent out for training and then deployed overseas, leaving Evie in an unfamiliar town. She went to work in the only trade she knew, tending bar, made new friends and entertained herself with partying, drinking, and pills. Charles would come and go, and for a long time had no idea that Evie was using pills. She was an expert at hiding her addiction as she had hidden her usage from her parents for years.

Evie woke up one morning in her car which was parked outside the bar where she worked. She was in her work clothes from the night before. Her keys were in the ignition and the contents of her purse were dumped out on the seat next to her. A half full cup of what smelled like scotch was in the cup holder. The smell of which made her retch. Her head hurt and she was thirsty. She did not remember going to work the night before, or working, or leaving work, or going to her car, or

drinking, or apparently taking all of the pills that she had in her purse. At the moment of not remembering, she realized two things. That she was lucky to be alive, and that she did not want Charles to know. It was easy enough for Charles not to know as he was deployed on assignment somewhere, and not expected back for another week.

Evie put her things back in her purse, poured the contents of the cup out the window, smoothed her hair, and drove home – back roads all the way. She did not want to be pulled over or have to speak to a law enforcement officer for any reason, not now, not today. Once home, she slept, got up, raided the fridge, and slept some more. That evening when Charles' skype call came through, she ignored it. She had to think, she needed time to clear her brain so she could think before she spoke to him. She knew he'd detect that something was off with her if he saw her on skype. Before they married she had promised him that all of her drinking and drugging activities were in the past. She felt bad for letting him down, and she felt let down too. The marriage thing was not what she expected, not what she thought she was getting into. He was gone all the time. Home maybe four or five days a month – a week at the most. She was left to her own devices, which obviously were not very good devices, as she had gone back to the same life she had before they were married, except without her life long friends around her.

So she left. She packed up and left and went back to her parent's house in Daytona Beach. She left Charles a note saying that she had some things to work out and had gone back to her parent's house and didn't know when she'd be back. She knew Charles would be hurt and angry; and she knew her parents would be judgmental and angry. She avoided Charles' skypes and calls as long as she could, but finally a few days after he returned from his mission she picked up her cell when he called. Tears and shouting ensued. Despite Evie not wanting Charles to know about her pill addiction she finally confessed to him. He told her not to call or contact him until and unless she had checked herself into rehab.

Evie's parents were not amused that she had left her husband after less than two years for no other reason than he worked a lot. Evie's dad let her know that she could stay with them for one month maximum, and then she needed to get her own place or go back to her husband. Evie went to work right away at her former beach bar. Before the one month was up, however, Evie learned she was pregnant with twins. Evie's mom was ecstatic to be a grandma, Evie's dad didn't say much at all. They both told her she had to tell Charles.

Charles hung up on her every time she called. He would hang up as soon as he asked whether she was in rehab and she said no. After several tries, she quit calling. Charles filed for divorce, Evie agreed to it and did not attend the court hearing.

Evie's parents caved and let her stay with them until after the babies were born, but, they said, then she would definitely have to find her own place. Evie stayed clean the entire time she was pregnant. Did not drink a drop and did not take one pill.

After the babies were born, the three of them moved in with one of Evie's lifelong friends and her two children. Evie applied for social assistance, food stamps, and child support. Charles denied that the children were his. Only after a court ordered DNA test did Charles recognize the twins as his own. And once he did, he took full advantage of Evie's request for him to take them for a while so that she could get back on her feet and get clean. He went to the Department of Children and Families and convinced them that due to Evie drug addiction she was not fit to raise the children and he should have sole custody. (Evie had not used any drugs since she had found out she was pregnant.) And then Charles went to the Department of Revenue and requested child support, and he was awarded $500 per month.

But everything changed the day Evie finally got her day in court.

The Pro Se Challenge - Accessing the Court System

As a pro se litigant, I recently experienced a frustrating (and expensive) example of the sort of barriers a pro se litigant can encounter. I discovered that court systems are not designed to aid the pro se litigant in filing their paperwork, and a clerk of court’s staff are often far from helpful.

In 2015, I was sued by someone in a state on the other side of the country. Other attorneys in his area referred to him as a vexatious litigant, and he filed all his lawsuits pro se and in forma pauperis. He had never won a lawsuit.

My background is in research, and I once managed a law library. So, I was able to defend myself, and I prepared a defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, the court system this man lived under was still in the 1990s technologically. There were many obscure rules, and many forms for filing documents that were unique to that court. Half the time I called the clerk of court to ask a question, and either the person I needed to speak to was “out of the office,” or the person I spoke to had no idea how to help me. To make matters worse, this court system just happened to be implementing new scheduling software, which caused even more problems as members of the clerk of court’s staff became unavailable because they were “in training.” I left messages, and did not receive calls back until literally the last minute I had to do my paperwork.

There was also no system set up for full electronic filing. I could send a copy to the clerk’s office electronically, provided I went through an obscure registration process. However, I was still required to “snail mail” copies to the judge. Barney Fife obviously served as clerk of court in this county!

I filed a motion to dismiss, only to discover that I had filled out a form incorrectly, and my dismissal hearing was not properly scheduled. I became so concerned about not being able to communicate with the clerk’s staff that I hired an attorney in the other state. In the end, because of various actions by the plaintiff, it cost me $21,000. It could have cost more. Thankfully, the attorney I hired recognized that I was competent at legal research and allowed me to do research for him on personal jurisdiction. That saved me $1500. (The judge, by the way, awarded me those attorney fees after everything else was over with.)

The attorney used the same arguments I used in my motion to dismiss, only adding a few points from that state’s case law. Had the court system in the Plaintiff’s state been more accessible, I could easily have handled these matters myself. The end of this affair proves it: After the Plaintiff lost to me in his home state, he tried to sue me in Florida – and I defeated him for no more than the cost of postage and copies..along with a small payment to a helpful legal document preparer!

Guest Blog - published with permission from the author, Jim Holding.

27 Barriers to Legal Access & 11 Possible Solutions

"The law should be a shield for the weak and powerless, not a club for the powerful."

- Gov. Roy Barnes, 2004 Equal Justice Conference

Article I, section 21 of the Constitution of the State of Florida requires that

“the courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.” 

Inherent in this mandate is the precept that our courts are neutral bodies that will interpret the law fairly, and will ensure equal treatment of all parties. 

27 Barriers to Legal Access

1. Many pro se litigants cannot afford to hire an attorney. One of the most common barriers is the economic situation of pro se litigants. Lawyers' fees are un-affordable for people with modest income. Also there is a limited access to free or low cost legal services.
2. Many consumers have no idea where to even begin.
3. Many would be pro se litigants don’t realize they have a right to access the court system themselves.
4. The law is packed with forms, statutes and jargon that the average person may not understand.
5. Legal aid societies cannot keep up with increasing pace of low income litigants. There is a limited supply of low cost or pro bono attorneys. Low cost legal assistance can be hard to find and non-profit centers with strict guidelines and so many people needing assistance, may not be able to help.
6. Judges don’t tend to like pro se litigants.
7. Judges assistants are sometimes rude.
8. Court clerks are often rude. Judges and courtroom personnel are often condescending towards pro se litigants.
9. Opposing counsel secretaries can be obnoxious.
10. Everybody hides the ball and passes the buck.
11. Everybody tells pro se litigants to get an attorney.
12. Pro se litigants lack credibility. People, like opposing counsel, clerks, or judges may think a pro se litigant doesn't know any of the rules; and so the pro se litigant may not be taken seriously.
13. The average reading level for Floridians is between the eighth and ninth grade level. The pro se forms and their instructions may be too difficult to read and understand; as they are written above the reading level of many Florida citizens. 
14. Unfamiliar legal jargon. Unnecessary terms are used. Legal “jargon” serves as a means to exclude from the courts any person who doesn't pay an attorney, or speak the jargon. 
15. Many people have incomes that are too high to qualify for free legal assistance. 
16. Unclear court procedures, confusing court forms, incomplete or misleading judicial websites. 
17. Underhanded attorneys will not file or notify pro se litigants with the correct paperwork in the correct manner, but if a pro se litigant does not follow procedure precisely, attorneys are the first to cry foul to the Judge. 
18. Language barriers - foreign born litigants, there is often no court interpreter available. 
19. Procedural requirements are often harder for pro se litigants, and purposely made this way. In fact, legal papers filed by an attorney that need to be “corrected” are often times overlooked by the judiciary system simply because they were filed by counsel. 
20. Clerks and opposing counsel withhold information from pro se litigants that is normally given to attorneys. If an attorney's office calls to ask about a hearing,for example, the clerk will provide all the answers. But if a person representing their own interests asked for the same information, the answer becomes legal advice. 
21. Pro se litigants are considered distinctly unwelcome. It is literally an institutional bias.
22. Unfamiliarity with legal procedures can be frustrating and embarrassing for someone seeking justice. It can cause a person to abandon their cause or wind up with a less than desired outcome.
23. Finding the correct forms to file. Choosing the right forms and filling them out correctly is not only time consuming, but can be an overwhelming task. 
24. Finding the proper jurisdiction and venue in which to bring their action. How to choose between small claims, county court, or circuit civil? Do I file my family law case where I live or where my ex lives? 
25. Navigating the legal system - civil process and procedure. Pre-law students, paralegals, and attorneys all take at least one course about civil process and procedure - CivPro. Many find the information overly detailed and difficult to retain. Imagine the pro se litigants' dilemma having to decipher an entire body of information for the first time, on a deadline, when their home, their money or their children may be at stake.
26. In many cases, clerks have been explicitly trained to never answer any questions from the pro se public. Such assistance has been perceived as violating the court’s neutrality or as unauthorized practice of law. Pro se litigants, therefore, frequently find their paperwork being refused as inappropriate or incomplete, but are given no help to correct it; no explanation of the problem or how to fix it; and no referral to someone who could help. This is called "hiding the ball".
27. Education is a big issue for many people who want to pursue their rights. Most of the do-it yourself forms require that the person has access to a computer with internet, to find forms; to fill them out; to print them out; and to do even rudimentary legal research.

Eleven Possible Solutions 

1. Explain court procedures clearly and patiently (several times if needed—it’s a lot to comprehend)
2. Help customers define for themselves what they are seeking and be good listeners. Sometimes people really need an ear because they get so beaten up by the system!
3. Clarify with them what their goals are. What are they trying to accomplish? Help them understand legal terminology or show them where they can look it up.
4. Help them fill out court forms.
5. Explain what types of pleadings exist and what the procedures are for their situation.
6. Help them get fee waivers (if they qualify) from the court.
7. Do some “hand holding” (give them a check-in call before court and a follow up call after)
8. Know when to refer them to an attorney (the case is too legally complex, there is a lot at stake and or the Judge is not taking them seriously.
9. The goal of any legal document preparer should be to provide professional document preparation services at a cost that is affordable. Not only should these services be given with the utmost professionalism, but also allow the customer to vent their frustrations and tell their story, This level of professionalism and interpersonal skill makes the personalized services of a legal document preparer far stronger than most realize; by not only providing the proper formatted forms they need, but often, even only temporarily, someone to listen.
10. As a legal document preparer our mission is to help others to complete their own legal tasks.
11. Empowering pro se litigants so they can become knowledgeable about their legal rights and be able to stand in front of a judge and state their case with confidence and conviction.

Mediation - What to Expect

What to Expect

You and the other parties in your case will sit down together with the mediator in an informal, conference room setting. The mediator will begin by explaining the mediation process and will answer any questions you may have. Each side is given an opportunity to express their concerns and talk about the case from their point of view. During the negotiation process, the mediator helps the parties clarify what the issues are and consider possible ways to resolve their differences so that an agreement can be reached. There may be a time that the mediator speaks to each party privately. These are called “caucuses” and are confidential discussions between the mediator and the individual party. At the end of the mediation conference:

• The parties may reach an agreement on all of the issues in their case. This is produced in a written document and submitted to the judge for approval. Once the judge approves your agreement, it becomes a binding Order of the Court and your case is officially settled.
• The parties may come to an agreement on some, but not all, of the issues. This partial agreement is also produced in writing for the judge’s approval and the remaining disputes in your case will be decided by the Court.
• The parties may not agree on any of the issues, which is called an “impasse”. Your case will proceed through the normal judicial process and be decided by the Court.

Is mediation confidential?

Yes. Mediation is privileged and confidential, with certain exceptions which are noted in Chapter 44 of the Florida Statutes. One reason why mediation is so successful is that people are able to talk freely about their concerns, understanding that what they say cannot be used against them in court. Your discussions during mediation cannot be divulged to outside parties, including the judge. If you are unable to reach an agreement, the mediator simply reports this to the judge without commenting any further on your case. Judges are not informed of the reasons for an unsuccessful mediation and do not hold this against the parties. 

Note: Written agreements produced during mediation are submitted to the judge for approval and become part of the case file. Like most other court documents, these agreements are “of public record” unless otherwise ordered by the judge. 

Framing the issue(s) for Mediation

One very important step is for the parties to agree on what they disagree about.  That sounds obvious, and easy, but that’s not always the case, and at the rates you may be paying a mediator, you want to start out with both parties and the mediator clearly understanding the dispute question. 

For example, consider the case of the real estate broker who contracted for the exclusive right to sell a homeowner’s residence for six months.  The broker advertised the home for a couple of months, but didn’t find any interested parties.  Thereafter, the broker didn’t do any more advertising, and the homeowner got disgusted and agreed to sell the home to his brother-in-law for a reduced price.  Then the real estate broker told the homeowner that he was owed a commission because the home sold.  What is the issue to be mediated?

There are many possibilities, but one way of phrasing it could be:

(1) Is the broker entitled to a commission because the home sold, even without his help?

….and possibly…

(2) Does the failure of the broker to continue to market the property serve to void the contract so that the homeowner is not obligated to pay the commission? 

It’s easy to see that the mediation could focus on a discussion of many things, but an agreement on the disputed issue will help all parties and the mediator focus efficiently on the fundamental question.

Preparing for the Mediation meeting

As a party in mediation, it is to your advantage to be as prepared as possible for a mediation meeting.  That meeting is your best opportunity to work out an agreement that works to your advantage, and it is the last best chance to control the outcome.  If the mediation fails, you and the other party will both be subject to the judge’s view, and no one – not you, not your attorney, and not the mediator – will know what the judge or even a jury will do with the case. 

One way to prepare is to start out by asking yourself: 

“Where would I like to be on this issue a year from now?”

“What benefit do I achieve if my position prevails?”

“What detriment do I incur if the other side’s position prevails?”

The next step is to assemble your “evidence” about why the case should be decided the way you wish…why you should win.  Remember that the mediator will not know the case, and you’ll have to carefully “tell the story”.  However, the purpose of that is not to convince the mediator – remember that the mediator does not decide the case…the decision is made by the parties.   The reason you have your evidence is so that the other party can see the best argument about why you may win.  After all, if the other party isn’t afraid of losing, why would he or she agree to a settlement that gives him or her less than everything asked for?

In a sense, the opening moves in mediation are for you to show your strength to the other party – why you believe you’ll win.  Then the other party does the same to you – showing you the best reasons why you’ll lose.   Once each side has seen the “best shot” of the other side, the parties will have a better idea of how the case might unfold in a court case, and the more likely a settlement.

In one sense, then, the willingness of the other side to settle is driven by the fear that side has of losing, and the same goes for you – your willingness to settle at mediation is directly related to how likely you think it is that you will lose, or how much you fear what will happen if you do lose.

The other goal is to really, seriously think through how you could compromise.  In my experience of

mediating, there has never been a situation where one side explained his case, and the other side jumped up and said, “You’re right!  I am so wrong!  I give up!”  That won’t happen.  So what you have to be prepared to do is give the other side something better than a complete loss. 

For example, if you own a car, and you take it to an auto engine repair shop to have the engine fixed, you may get your car back with the engine not running any better and you may refuse to pay the bill for $1,000.  The auto engine shop prepares to sue you.  What can you lose?  The $1,000.  What can you gain?  Not having to pay anything because the engine is no better. 

Are you sure you’ll win?  No.  Is the other side sure he’ll win?  No.  You might put forward to him your reasons why you think you’ll win, but after you hear his reasons why you should have to pay, you may recognize that the judge may agree with him, and if there is a 50-50 chance of that happening, it may make sense to take the safe bet and offer to pay the other side, say, $400.00.  The other side may think that he has a good case, but recognizes that if the car is not running better, the judge may agree with you, and he may be willing to settle for $600.00, reasoning that getting $600 is better than getting nothing.  So it’s to your advantage to prepare your case well, but to know what you’d be willing to settle for to close out the case and not risk having to pay the entire $1,000. Keep that in mind what your goal is in preparation – prepare to win, but assess the value of settling.

Conducting the Mediation

Appearance by parties. For court-ordered mediation, the parties must appear when scheduled by the court. 

Court Rule 1.720 (b) Sanctions for Failure to Appear provides that if a party who has notice fails to appear at a mediation conference without good cause, the court, upon motion by the other party, shall impose sanctions, including an award of mediator and attorneys’ fees and other costs, against the party failing to appear. Unless stipulated by the parties or court to the otherwise, parties are physically present when:

• The party is present
• The party’s representative having full authority to settle without further consultation
• The party’s counsel of record

Now that you’ve identified the mediator, a mutually-agreeable time and place will be established.  If it is court ordered, it may not be mutually agreed, but decided by the court.

Mediation procedure and confidentiality.

When the parties are seated, the mediator will explain that the proceedings are confidential, and what’s discussed in the mediation can’t be brought up later.  That means that if the other side makes an offer to settle the case for $400.00, you can’t say to the judge (assuming that mediation fails), “Well judge, he OFFERED $400.00 in mediation.”   Florida Statutes 44.102(3) provides that a party in a court-ordered mediation proceeding can assert a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person present at the session from disclosing, communications occurring in the mediation. The only part of a mediation that is permissible to disclose is the written agreement to mediate.

Rule 1.720 (d) provides that the mediator shall at all times be in control of the mediation, and the procedures to be followed in the mediation.  Attorneys representing clients who are parties can be present, but the mediator is in control.  Counsel for the parties shall be permitted to communicate privately with their clients, and if present in the mediation, will normally speak for the client.  In the discretion of the mediator, and with the agreement of the parties, mediation may proceed in the absence of counsel unless otherwise ordered by court.  However, from a practical point of view, most mediators will not move forward if a party’s attorney has left the room, unless prior arrangements have been made with the party and his or her attorney.

The mediator will ask the party bringing the complaint to explain his side of the story.  That doesn’t typically mean that the party should explain every little detail, but rather that the party should give the mediator an overview of the case from the party’s perspective.  The other party should sit quietly and not interrupt – that party will have its turn to correct any errors or misstatements by the first party later. 

The other party will then have the opportunity to tell the other side of the story.  Both parties can provide copies of contracts, repair orders, bills incurred, photos, etc. but the mediator may or may not want to see them – remember that the mediator will not be making the decision, if a decision is made.  

After these opening statements, the mediator may ask questions, or may ask that one party leave the room so the mediator can talk with the other party privately.  This is referred to as a “caucus”.  The mediator may then want to talk to the other party privately, or may not.  Any caucus discussion is confidential too, and can’t be disclosed to the party who was not in the caucus unless the party in caucus agrees. 

Sequestration of Parties. The parties may be kept separate, and never see each other again in the proceeding, or they may be brought back to the table.  Generally speaking, business mediations tend to be unemotional, but in emotionally charged mediations, like a divorce or child custody case, it may work best to keep the parties in different rooms, with the mediator shuttling back and forth between the parties.

Agreement, partial agreement, and Impasse

If the parties don’t reach agreement, then the plaintiff or complainant (the one bringing the case up in the first place) can proceed to take legal action, if he or she chooses to do so.  Rule 1.730(a) provides that if the parties do not reach agreement on any matter in a court-ordered mediation, the mediator will report the lack of agreement (impasse) to the court without comment or recommendation. 

Note that if there are three issues in the mediation, and there is resolution of two of the issues, the parties may agree that the three issues are independent or inter-dependent.  If the three are independent, then the mediation has resolved two of the issues, and only the third issue will be returned to the judge for a court decision. 

However, if the parties cannot agree that the three issues are independent, then there is deemed to be NO agreement, and all three issues are returned to the judge, with annotation that there is no agreement, and the judge will rule on all three issues.

If there is agreement, then it has to be implemented. A mediation can be conducted on a given day, and if not completed, it can be continued to another day mutually convenient to the parties.  However, Court Rule 1.710(1) Completion of Mediation provides that mediation must be completed within 45 days of the first mediation conference unless extended by order of the court or stipulation of the parties.

Implementing the mediated Agreement

If the parties have reached agreement on what will resolve the dispute, the mediator will help them write an agreement.  It’s important to have the mediator’s assistance on this so that the wording is clear and it doesn’t leave important questions unanswered.  For example, if the parties agree that defendant will pay plaintiff $10,000,

• When is it to be paid? 
• Where? 
• Is a check OK or not? 

Does the $10,000 settle “all issues arising out of or in connection with the dispute”, or can a party

bring another action on some unsettled aspect of the dispute? 

The agreement can result in a party returning goods, or paying money to the other party, or can require a party to do something, or stop doing something.  All this needs to be spelled out, along with when the agreed action must be completed, and what the completion consists of.  For example, if the agreement is that the car owner will return the car to the dealership and get money refunded, is the car owner liable for the miles on the car and have his refund reduced by the number of miles driven, or does he get all his money back?

Enforcement of the mediated Agreement

Once the agreement is signed, it is a contract between the parties, and is enforceable so long as the actions agreed to in the mediation agreement are legal and possible to be performed.  If the agreed actions are not taken by the parties by the agreed time, the aggrieved party can bring an action in court to enforce the agreement.  Basically, this means that the issues in the original case are no longer relevant in most instances, and the judge won’t look to see what the agreement was about.  The judge will merely note that there is an agreement to do certain things and that a party has breached the agreement, resulting in a court order for the party to perform, or for the breaching party to pay money damages for not performing.

*This article was in my files, I did not write it. I would be happy to give author credit, but I don't know where this came from. I don't mean to plagiarize, I don't know who wrote this, but I think it is good information well worth sharing.

Access to Civil Justice Commission - Administrative Order

The following order was signed by Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Jorge Labarga on November 24, 2014.

WHEREAS, the American and Florida judicial systems are founded upon the fundamental principle that justice should be accessible to all persons, the advancement of which is of profound interest to the Supreme Court of Florida; and

WHEREAS, access to civil justice for lower income and disadvantaged persons is a critical challenge for the legal system, especially in difficult economic times; and

WHEREAS, the number of self-represented litigants has increased significantly over the past decade with the majority of family law matters in most states now including at least one unrepresented party, some of whom are unable to prepare court documents and effectively present their positions in court proceedings; and

WHEREAS, the population that is eligible for Legal Services Corporationfunded legal services has grown dramatically in recent years while at the same time federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation declined approximately seventeen percent from 2010 to 2012; and

WHEREAS, the Florida Interest on Trust Accounts Program also provides funds in support of legal assistance for the poor but is experiencing severely reduced revenue as a result of historic low interest rates; and

WHEREAS, the Florida state courts have diligently endeavored since the 1990’s to develop forms, instructions, and other self-help resources in order to afford fair and timely resolution of cases involving self-represented family law litigants; and

WHEREAS, other entities in the Florida justice system have likewise endeavored within their respective scope of authority to improve the availability and delivery of judicial and legal services to lower income, disadvantaged, and self-represented individuals; and

WHEREAS, despite these noteworthy and substantial efforts, Floridians continue to encounter barriers when seeking meaningful and informed access to the civil justice system; and

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Florida recognizes the importance of responding to the unmet legal needs of low and moderate income Floridians, the increasing complexity of civil legal services delivery, the importance of access to civil justice in the proper functioning of our democracy, and the need for leadership and effective coordination of access to civil justice efforts in Florida; and

WHEREAS, approximately thirty states and the District of Columbia have established access to justice commissions for the general purpose of collectively identifying and removing barriers to civil justice for low-income and disadvantaged persons; and

WHEREAS, many organizations throughout the state share a commitment to improving access to justice and, as the head of the judicial branch, the Supreme Court of Florida is the logical entity to create a commission to study access and serve as the umbrella organization for efforts to enhance access to civil justice in Florida.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice is hereby established to study the remaining unmet civil legal needs of disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians. In conducting its work the Commission should consider Florida’s legal assistance delivery system as a whole, including but not limited to staffed legal aid programs, resources and support for self-represented litigants, limited scope representation, pro bono services, innovative technology solutions, and other models and potential innovations. The Commission should encompass the viewpoints of multiple constituencies and stakeholders and not be limited to those of any one particular institution.

During its term, the Commission shall perform the following tasks:

1. Provide a forum for discussion among the judicial branch, legislative branch, executive branch, the civil legal services and pro bono community, Bar leaders, funders, the business community, and other interested stakeholders, about issues affecting access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians.

2. Identify and examine barriers that impede access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians.

3. Determine how to promote coordination of legal services delivery to low income Floridians, for optimum efficiency and effectiveness.

4. Consider and evaluate components of a continuum of services for the unrepresented, taking into account consumer needs and preferences. Such components might include interactive forms; unbundled legal services; the involvement of court, law, and public libraries; and other innovations and alternatives.

5. Examine ways to leverage technology in expanding access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians.

6. Identify and build partnerships among the courts, members of the private bar, providers of legal services, and other stakeholders who are engaged or interested in expanding access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians.

7. Examine how available resources might be maximized and identify how additional resources might be procured in order to provide stable funding in support of services that enhance access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians.

The Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice shall submit an interim report to the Court no later than October 1, 2015, and a final report and recommendations to the Court no later than June 30, 2016. Copies of the interim and final reports should also be provided to the Governor of Florida, the President of the Florida Senate, and the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. In its final report, the Commission should include recommendations on the need for the establishment of a permanent access to justice commission in Florida.

Members have been selected based upon their experience within the Florida justice system and their anticipated commitment. These individuals offer a diversity of perspectives and expertise that will enable the Commission to meet its overall mission and specific objectives. The following persons are hereby appointed to the Commission for terms that expire on June 30, 2016:

The Honorable Jorge Labarga, Chair
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Florida

From the Florida Supreme Court - Strategic Planning Survey

The Florida Supreme Court is seeking comments from non-attorneys involved in law suits. The survey will be available through January 30, 2015. The following information is posted on the Florida Supreme Court's website.

Take the Survey

Strategic Planning Surveys

The Florida Supreme Court would like to hear from you about the Florida Court System. We are updating the strategic plan for the state courts system and need you to tell us how we are doing, what you think works well, and what may need to be improved. Your opinions are important to us, and they will affect the plans and choices that we make.

Please take a few minutes to leave your comments and help us make our state courts system more effective at providing justice for all.

NON-ATTORNEY COURT USER SURVEY:
Party to a Lawsuit or Legal Action / Defendant / Victim / Witness

If you have been involved in a case or court action recently either as a party to a lawsuit or legal action, a victim, a witness, or a defendant, please click on the image below to take the survey for non-attorney court users.

The Florida Court System is Seeking Comments

The Florida Supreme Court’s Long Range Strategic Planning Workgroup would like to hear from you about the Florida Court System. We are updating the strategic plan for the state courts system and need you to tell us how we are doing, what you think works well, and what may need to be improved. Your opinions are important to us, and they will affect the plans and choices that we make. Please take a few minutes to submit your comments and help us make our state courts system more effective at providing justice for all. 

All responses are completely anonymous; they will be compiled together and analyzed as a group. No one’s answers will be singled out or reported in any way that would allow identification of participants. Survey responses are public record, which must be disclosed upon request, but again, without disclosing any identifying information.

Take the Survey

E-Filing for Florida pro se litigants - Be Careful What you Wish For.

As of June 21, 2014, Florida pro se litigants can e-file their court documents in all counties and circuits throughout the state. E-filing has been in place for attorneys for some time, and this move may level the playing field for pro se litigants. Or it may prove to be yet a new barrier to court access. Only time will tell.

In the past, pro se litigants have struggled to meet the requirements of court filings. A few circuits have active pro se help desks that benefit consumers by making sure that their documents are complete and correct. However, in many other circuits pro se litigants' access to the legal system is effectively obstructed by clerks of court who reject pro se litigants documents for errors or missing forms. It remains to be seen how this will play out with e-filing.

Even worse, in the past, pro se filings sometimes languish in legal limbo due to a deficiency. Frequently, pro se litigants experience immense frustration when dealing with the court system. Consumers are often met with a non-answer from a court clerk - "We are prohibited from giving legal advice". Fair enough, however, when the clerks select forms for pro se litigants by refusing to accept their documents for lack of a form, is that not also legal advice according to the Florida Bar UPL rules?

I don't mean to sound negative, and am trying to keep an open mind. Any step forward in court access for consumers is a good thing. I only hope that the automated e-filing system doesn't create additional barriers. To learn more about e-filing for pro se litigants go to www.myflcourtaccess.com.

If you have already used the pro se e-filing system, please comment.