Networking to Serve Self-Represented Litigants

This Monday-morning session highlighted the Self Represented Litigation Network (SRLN). A quick show of hands revealed that most audience members were courthouse, county, and state law librarians, with a smaller contingent of academic law librarians. But the “networking” topic could not have been more relevant to the diverse crowd.

The panel discussion was coordinated and moderated by Charles R. Dyer, a library consultant in Bellingham, Washington and a retired library director. The session was kicked off by the Honorable Kevin Burke, of Minnesota’s Hennepin County Court. Judge Burke started by noting that what litigants want, whether they win or lose their case, is to feel that they have been listened to with respect, and to understand the outcome they obtained. Law libraries, he observed, can be crucial in filling these needs. He invoked a powerful image by comparing the experience of a self-represented litigant in a law library with that of a customer in a retail store:  Is the person greeted by a salesperson who asks “May I help you?” or by a security guard? Finally, the judge emphasized the need for leadership, and in particular the need for the library community to share its knowledge with judges and court administrators.

Sara Galligan, of the Dakota County Law Library, spoke next. As chair of the AALL Pro Bono Partnerships Special Committee, she presented recommendations for AALL’s collaboration with SRLN. Among the opportunities Galligan mentioned is the need to identify the major case types in which people are most likely to be self-represented. She also advocated for continued and increased development of reliable, lay-friendly legal forms for use in these major case categories - since otherwise the self-represented may settle for potentially misleading or unhelpful forms commercially available via the internet. Law librarians, including academic law librarians who serve pro se/in propria persona patrons, are well positioned to gather data and to contribute to local efforts to identify needs and develop resources for the self-represented. Finally, Galligan noted the need for expansion of court-sponsored alternative dispute resolution options.

The next speaker, Richard Zorza of Zorza Associates, spoke of the role of the courts not merely as a site for the resolution of disputes presented, but as an institution for the administration of access to justice. Rather than simply processing the cases that are brought, courts need to develop services and programs that help people where they are, where the problems are. Mr. Zorza noted in particular the widening gap in services for middle-income individuals who do not qualify for pro bono assistance. While noting the differing ethical limitations faced by courthouse law librarians as distinct from law librarians in other settings, Zorza asserted that the values inherent in all librarians’ ethical and professional standards are best carried out when both the court system and legal information professionals are actively “engaged” - informative, accessible, and proactive - in their services to self-represented litigants, while remaining impartial as between parties or viewpoints.

The final panelist, Bonnie Rose Hough, from the California Administrative Office of the Courts, proposed some practical steps law librarians can take to improve their service to self-represented litigants. Among her suggestions:

• Bring in a volunteer as a “mystery shopper” to get feedback about the layout, signage, service, and personal interactions a patron experiences at your library.
• Meet with partners - other legal information providers to whom your institution may refer patrons - to make sure you are making appropriate referrals, and look for potential new partners and new opportunities for collaboration and referral.
• Work with partners to institute a referral slip system, providing patrons with information filled out on a standard form, like a “legal prescription slip.” Such a written form can help the patron (and the next librarian who encounters the individual) to identify the legal research issue and/or specific resources needed.
• Develop collections for self-represented litigants, including by using the SRLN web site’s list of self-help materials. Develop a self-help center that includes materials with jurisdiction-specific information in plain English.
• Learn about effectively combining signage, verbal, and written information by observing other service organizations - such as a hospital emergency room - where critical, complex information is communicated under stressful circumstances.
• Find out about community resources to assist with mental health or other social services needs of self-represented litigants.

One of Ms. Hough’s final suggestions reiterated her emphasis on communication, and echoed Judge Burke’s retail store analogy:  she urged reference librarians to avoid the response “I cannot give you legal advice,” by reframing the question to tell the patron “Here’s what I can help you with.” For a session devoted to the topic of networking to serve self-represented litigants, it was a fitting note on which to conclude.

SRLN’s website, including resources for librarians and other professionals who serve self-represented litigants is www.srln.org/ (member registration required). Included at the SRLN’s home page is a link to www.lawhelp.org/ - the 2007 Webby Award-winning site where your library’s self-represented patrons can find topically arranged information on legal aid referrals and other resources available in your state.