Chief Justice Saufley on the Pro se Litigant before Maine Judicial Committee.

Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley recently spoke before the Judiciary Committee of Maine. Among many topics she mentioned Pro se representation. Presented here is the sound bite dealing with Prose. Below is the transcription of the sound bite:

“To many people who have to come to court without lawyers – and that is a very long conversation, but we have all kinds of innovations we are working on. We’re watching other states to see what’s working there. The bottom line is that people should have an attorney to help them when something in their life has gone so wrong that they have to be in a court room. Its not a good idea to not be represented, so we’re working on plans to help improve all of that… ummmm…”

The sound bite may be found here: Chief Justice Leigh Saufley.

We would like to ask Chief Justice Saufley if she could gave us an example of some of those “innovations” she mentioned. How will they make the court system better? Are some of these “innovations” simply a euphemism for more money for Maine courts? The problems that the Judicial Branch have – go beyond the mantra of more money and innovations. Our Judicial Branch is the foundation to our system of justice here in this state and the structure that they are trying to patch is beyond mere cosmetic changes for which they have proposed before in the past.

Take for example the Family Court system that the Chief Justice has admitted is in trouble. Guardians ad litem that practice psychology, social work and law without a license but sanctioned and encouraged by the court to do so. On a regular basis we see the use of Consumers have been subjected to Judicial Out Sourcing; Junk Science; Psycho-eugenics; Legal Abuse Syndrome and Moral Equivalency. There is no scientific basis or history for these ideas – yet – the courts fully embrace these ideas. There is no management of the various parts and no oversight. 74% of the parents entering the Family Court system who do so Pro se and for the vast majority they have no idea how to conduct them selves. We have court officers who provide the bare minimum of help to the 74%. What “innovations” will help these customers of Family Court services? More money will not help. Money has poured into finding a solution and so far the investment has bared no fruit. Why are we “watching” other states? Are we looking for a patch that is less painful for customers? Once those solutions are found will the Judicial Branch even be able to implement process and systems change? I mean we are talking about a bunch of lawyers here. They know how to find innovative ways of charging their clients – but do they know anything about systems and process improvement?

As a foundation upon which the various courts stand – the Judicial Branch cannot afford to continue to make decisions that harm their consumers to the benefit of the 26% who are not Pro se. It may be time to stop patching the building(s) and bring in an outside contractor for help. Someone who is not embedded in law, knows systems analysis and can identify issues and ways to improve them so that we have a world class court – as we did in the past.

Please contact us if you need help in filling out forms for Family Court. We are not able to provide legal advice (we are not lawyers) – just help. Contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. Also find us on Facebook.

Maine: We must work together to ensure justice truly is for all in Maine – a response

Dr Jerome A. Collins response to Hon. Andrew Mead opinion.

To cut to the chase in my response to Justice Mead: the fundamental issue is how can democracy in America survive, if one of its major institutions, the Judiciary, is not fully and equally accessible to 74% of those ‘pro se’ (self representatives), who use family courts? The 74% ‘pro se’ statistic comes from a very reliable source and was personally communicated to me after I submitted my essay for March 12th publication. It is an astounding piece of data. For context, it should be noted that the ‘pro se’ percentage varies from state to state and province to province in Canada, but it is better than 50% virtually everywhere. Fundamentally, it means inequality of judicial service for the 74% that are forced by economics to do “do-it-yourself” lawyering.

In any democracy, courts of law are the major, socially approved “problem-solving” institution for society. And when this is drastically unequal, our courts are in the embarrassing position of offering a two tier quality of service. Good quality justice for those who pay; second class justice for that very large demographic, the economically disadvantaged middle class. It can only be seen as a major scandal for any democracy! It raises many questions: How long has this been developing, why hasn’t the public been made more aware, when may we expect solutions? My hunch is that current efforts at a repair of access to justice may suffer from the professional make up of those doing the problem-solving. An overbalance of lawyers in the problem-solving, for example, may skew the perspectives of the problem. Lawyers, after all, don’t have an access to justice problem!
It is nice to learn that The Justice Action Group is working on a solution, but the access to justice problem seems to be escaping them. As they work, it grows by leaps and bounds. The 74% ‘pro se’ statistic is not a static; it is growing both here in Maine and in other states. All the nice charitable basket of mini proposals that the Bar is developing, are not systemic solutions; they don’t touch 74%. They seem “tokenistic”, a band aid on a metastatic cancer that will not stay covered.

Justice Mead et al need to look North to Canada and study some of the much more creative solutions being proposed for Canada’s “Access to Justice” problem. Canadians are saying that everyone, all citizens should have equal access to justice. Must we in Maine settle for less?

Our strong suggestion is that a much broader problem solving process is needed asap. We are talking about one of the pillars of any democracy, its system of justice. The 74% statistic is a clarion call for more than just “repair” from a professionally composed, well-intentioned committee!

We need a major commission sponsored by all three branches of Maine’s government! And we need it asap!

Jerome A Collins, MD
Kennebunkport, Maine 04046

For further information on the Family Court and divorce industry crisis please email at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook. In addition the report by Canada “Access to Civil & Family Justice – A Roadmap for Change” may be found here.