Ordinary people are able to handle an increasing number of situations on their own that used to require professional help. From simple hardware and plumbing repairs to basic diagnosis of minor medical issues, the answer to problems is often only a click away. Responsive Law wants to accelerate the rate at which the legal industry adopts DIY solutions.


Interested in learning more? Sign up for our newsletter!

Receive Updates

 

Like what we're doing? Support us and donate!

Donate

User-Friendly Courts

 

Due to the high cost of lawyers and the lack of alternatives to using a lawyer for legal help, many people are representing themselves in court. In many states, 80% of divorce cases involve at least one self-represented party.

Courts need to make themselves more friendly to self-represented parties. These people are customers of the courts, just as much as lawyers are. Courts should provide plain language forms and instructions to their customers. They should also encourage clerks and judges to answer questions about legal procedures.

Small claims courts are generally the most user-friendly courts, since they offer an expedited trial before a judge, with simple rules and procedures, intended for self-represented parties. However, even these courts could improve their customer experience by introducing these reforms:

Raise the limits on damage awards.

In many states small claims courts can only award up to $5,000 in damages – a fraction of the value of many disputes. When the value of a dispute falls between the upper limit of small claims and the lowest amount that makes a full trial economically viable, plaintiffs are left in a bind. They can either sue in small claims for the maximum allowed, and walk away from the rest, or sue in a regular court, which is almost certain to be impractical. A limit of $25,000 would allow plaintiffs to seek a full remedy in small claims.
 

Give small claims court judges the power to order injunctive relief.

If small claims courts are to be alternatives to civil courts, they must be able to render the same kinds of judgments as other civil courts, not just award monetary damages. For example, it would make sense to allow a small claims court to hear a dispute between neighbors and to be able to issue an injunction.

Allow courts to require an accounting of assets.

This process, where defendants who lose a case have to disclose information about where they have bank accounts and other assets, would give plaintiffs a better chance of collecting money after a verdict in their favor, which is often a problem.

Make courts more user-friendly

Even small claims courts can be intimidating to the average person. Simplifying court procedures and using plain language would encourage citizens to resolve their disputes in court rather than walk away. Expanding their hours of operation to include nights and weekends, operating satellite or mobile courts, allowing online filing, and making advisors available (including allowing clerks to answer simple questions about procedure) would also help.

Click here to read our testimony on this issue.

Click here to read our blog posts on this issue

 

Making Self-Help Tools Available

 

Ever since the 1965 publication of a book called How to Avoid Probate, lawyers have fought against self-help tools that might cost them customers. Although the bar tried to have publication of this book stopped, the US Supreme Court ultimately ruled that readers had a right to the information in the book.
 
Now, fifty years later, the same battle is being fought around online self-help tools. Websites that walk people through a series of questions to help them fill out forms are under fire from bar associations who claim that these websites are acting as “cyberlawyers” and committing the unauthorized practice of law.
 
Responsive Law believes that consumers have a right to legal information and self-help tools, whether in printed form or in the form of a computer program. Consumers are smart enough to know the difference between an online form generator and a lawyer, and lawyers who provide services beyond form completion have nothing to fear from competition from online self-help tools.