« Ind. Laws - More on: "Lawmaker to push texting-driving ban" | Main | Environment - "Fight Against Asian Carp Threatens Fragile Great Lakes Unity " »

Saturday, January 02, 2010

Ind. Courts - "Closing this library, dismantling the resources, dismissing the librarian -- this is very unfortunate and falls into the 'whatever can they be thinking?' category"

The above quote expresses my thoughts on the closing of the Marion County Law Library, one of Indiana's endangered courthouse law libraries, and appeared at the end of this Dec. 24th, 2009 ILB entry headed "County library could be endangered legal resource." That entry featured extended quotes from Zoya Golban, who had been the librarian for a number of years, as well as quotes from a Sept. 21, 2009 story by Francesca Jarosz in the Indianapolis Star, reporting that the City-County Council planned to close the courthouse law library at the end of 2009.

In today's Star, reporter Jarosz follow up, with this story headed "Budget cuts force law library to close."

I'll have quotes from that story later in this entry, but first another story that adds context. Actually, it is an op-ed editorial, in today's NY Times, written by John T. Broderick Jr., the chief justice of New Hampshire, and Ronald M. George, the chief justice of California, and is headed "A Nation of Do-It-Yourself Lawyers." Some quotes:

AMERICA’S courts are built on a system of rules and procedures that assume that almost everyone who comes to court has a lawyer. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. An increasing number of civil cases go forward without lawyers. Litigants who cannot afford a lawyer, and either do not qualify for legal aid or are unable to have a lawyer assigned to them because of dwindling budgets, are on their own — pro se. What’s more, they’re often on their own in cases involving life-altering situations like divorce, child custody and loss of shelter.

As the economy has worsened, the ranks of the self-represented poor have expanded. In a recent informal study conducted by the Self-Represented Litigation Network, about half the judges who responded reported a greater number of pro se litigants as a result of the economic crisis. Unrepresented litigants now also include many in the middle class and small-business owners who unexpectedly find themselves in distress and without sufficient resources to pay for the legal assistance they need.

As judges, we believe more needs to be done to meet this growing challenge: an inaccessible, overburdened justice system serves none of us well. * * *

It is essential that we promote other efforts to close the “justice gap.”

One such effort involves the “unbundling” of legal services. Forty-one states, including California and New Hampshire, have adopted a model rule drafted by the American Bar Association, or similar provisions, which allow lawyers to unbundle their services and take only part of a case, a cost-saving practice known as “limited-scope representation” that, with proper ethical safeguards, is responsive to new realities. * * *

What could be wrong with this? Well, some lawyers have expressed concern that limited legal representation will encourage litigants to dissect their cases in an effort to save money, sacrificing quality representation that the litigant might otherwise be able to afford.

We have also heard the argument that by offering too much assistance to self-represented litigants, the courts themselves are undermining the value of lawyers and the legal profession. Apparently, some are concerned that the court system will become so user-friendly that there will be no need for lawyers.* * *

We need members of the legal profession to join with us, as many have done, in meeting this challenge by making unbundled legal services and other innovative solutions — like self-help Web sites, online assistance programs and court self-help centers — work for all who need them. If we are to maintain public trust and confidence in the courts, we must keep faith with our founding principles and our core belief in equal justice under the law.

Indiana has adopted the ABA Model Rule permitting "limited-scope representation." See Rule 1.2(c) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. (It looks like this change went into effect in 2004.) The Indiana Supreme Court has a number of online self-help aids - see this Self-Service Legal Center. In addition, as this press release indicates, the Supreme Court has authorized $750,000 in funding to Indiana non-profits that provide civil legal aid services to the poor without charge.

Now some quotes from Jarosz's follow-up story this morning, headed "Budget cuts force law library to close."

Librarian Zoya Golban turned off the lights and locked the doors Wednesday at the Marion County Law Library for the last time.

The cozy repository for legal materials and publicly accessible computers on the third floor of the City-County Building will permanently close this year because of city budget cuts.

But the library's closing, court officials say, won't be the end of the help the center provided to the roughly 3,000 Marion County residents who represent themselves in civil cases each year.

Starting Monday, those self-represented (or "pro se") litigants will be directed to an existing cluster of four computers at the Family Resource Center on the main floor of the City-County Building. There, they will be able to obtain help in finding forms they need to file in court and print documents -- functions previously served by the law library.

Those who want to access books the law library offered will be sent to the Indianapolis-Marion County Central Library, which will take on a portion of the law library's collection designed for people representing themselves in court. * * *

Library employees also will receive some training to help pro se litigants, but their resources are limited.

The library's public computers have time restrictions for usage. And since the library's staff has to answer questions on many different subjects, they can't focus solely on people seeking legal information, said Laura Bramble, chief executive officer of the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library.

"In the past, we could send them on to the Marion County Law Library as they need additional help," Bramble said. "Now we won't be able to do that."

Another unanswered question is to what extent the library, which itself is facing budgetary challenges, will be able to update the books the county law library provides. Bramble said library staff would have to review how often the materials they receive need to be updated and at what cost. * * *

For litigants such as Troy Davis, getting help with the court process is important. The Indianapolis man, who cannot afford a lawyer, went to the law library last week to find paperwork to file for emergency guardianship of his 17-year-old nephew.

Golban pointed him toward some sample forms for guidance. He left the library a little overwhelmed by the task before him of drafting his own form.

But without any assistance, he said, he would have been lost in a complex legal system.

The Marion County Law Library was a resource that was working and serving a definite need, operating alongside the online forms and the legal aid clinics for those who qualify. It is too bad funding could not be found in the county budget, or the courts' budget. This valuable resource is now gone -- the librarian who could help cut through the complexities let go, the books moved many blocks north to the Marion County Central Library which already has enormous financial burdens along with its many new responsibilities (including serving welfare and workforce development applicants).

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 2, 2010 07:13 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts