Dave Pantzer, BridgeTower Media Newswires
I saw an old friend recently, a private attorney I've known for several years. He ribbed me, as he always does, based on my role overseeing the People's Law Library website: "So, you still trying to convince people they don't need to hire attorneys?"
While the question is not quite apropos of People's Law, it helps me frame a question I've been mulling. Should lawyers provide legal information that will help people represent themselves in court? More pointedly, does providing this information discourage clients from working with lawyers?
At the outset, consider this: If People's Law enables some to forego legal help, it helps others to engage a lawyer for the first time. Many people know they have a problem, but don't know it's a legal problem. They don't call a lawyer they go to Google. (About 80 percent of pageviews on People's Law come through internet search engines.) Readers may understand for the first time that a lawyer can help.
But what about self-representation? First, people will usually represent themselves when the cost of representation exceeds the value of the good sought. It does not make sense to pay a lawyer $600 to go after $500. Fee-shifting statutes help some, but for the others, the only rational option is self-help.
Second, the poorest of the poor have no money to hire a lawyer. When their rights are violated, or their interests are at stake, they have three options: find free legal help; go to court alone; or go without. This is why we have Legal Aid, legal services organizations, government programs and private pro bono. But there is not enough free legal help even for those who qualify. When a person's only option is self-help, the profession should at least provide clear instructions.
The practical information on People's Law also helps pro bono lawyers more efficiently provide help in unfamiliar areas of law.
'Limited scope'
This brings us to my friend's real question: Why should lawyers go out of their way to provide free information to those who have some money but have not budgeted for legal fees? The classic response says, "You wouldn't attempt [medicine, plumbing, car repair] without professional help, so why law?" But this argument alone is not enough.
For one thing, many lawyers embrace task sharing, also called "limited scope" representation, a form of legal help where the lawyer and the client agree ahead of time what the lawyer will do, and what the client will do. This works best where clients have a resource like People's Law to help them with their tasks. This option can help people afford some legal help instead of none.
Client goals vary, but information helps with most goals. Perhaps some just want the knowledge they need to carry out "mechanical" tasks for themselves. Others want to be educated consumers when they come to negotiate a legal fee. (Most of us, even if we have no intention of repairing our own car, would like some insight before stepping into the shop to negotiate with a mechanic.) And even after hiring a lawyer, clients benefit from legal explanations. Lawyers can use People's Law to provide the information needed for each of those goals.
The middle cases
Between the simplest problems on one hand, and the thorniest on the other, lies a spectrum of problems where clients will decide whether to hire a lawyer based on their personality, resources, and history in short, their autonomy. It is precisely these middle cases where clients need good information to make good decisions.
Of course, most people want more than information; they want the guidance and advocacy that lawyers provide. However clear the information we provide, it won't replace the lawyer's role.
Some fear the profession will be devalued if clients think a judge is bending over backward to protect a self-represented party. It's true that judges must walk a careful line to be fair to lawyer-represented and self-represented parties. It would surely be easier if everyone had a lawyer. For now, the tension remains. For now, the solution is not to disincentivize self-representation by hiding the ball and making it harder. The solution is to promote clear information, putting self-represented litigants on a fairer footing and reducing the pressure on a judge to step in on their behalf.
So, the answer to my skeptical friend's question is "yes and no." I want to provide clear, legal information and how-to's. I also want to provide red flags showing where a lawyer would be helpful, or even necessary. These goals are consistent with open and transparent government, and with the autonomy of the public we serve.
-----
Dave Pantzer is the web content coordinator for the People's Law Library, a legal information website managed by the Maryland State Law Library, and chairman of the Maryland State Bar Association's Section on the Delivery of Legal Services. He can be reached at dave.pantzer @mdcourts.gov.
Published: Thu, Sep 15, 2016
