This week’s blog is co-written by Julie and SRL and NSRLP Advisory Board member Jennifer Muller.
As 15 SRLs and 45 justice system professionals – lawyers, judges, policymakers, academics, public legal education providers, legal aid directors and more – gathered in Windsor two weeks ago for the second NSRLP Dialogue Event, “Continuing the Dialogue”, the buzz in the room felt very different from a little more than five years earlier when Julie and Sue Rice (NSRLP’s original Project Coordinator) first put together this social experiment.
On October 11th, 2018, there was infinitely more comfort among the disparate individuals snacking and playing “people bingo” at the Event welcome reception than in 2013. Some of the SRLs had expressed anxiety before their arrival, but each seemed to be settling in comfortably. Five years ago, there had been some anxious circling as people in each “solitude” tried to figure out who the “others” were. This time there was immediate rapport among acquaintances, and great conversations going on all around the room. Curiosity seemed to have replaced the fear and angst that was perceptible amongst delegates back in 2013. Progress?
Jennifer’s Memories of the First Dialogue Event, “Opening the Dialogue”
I remember sharing my story as an SRL in public for the very first time on the first morning of the original Dialogue Event. I felt very nervous and scared. When I was representing myself, I did not tell anyone because I felt ashamed that I could not afford a lawyer – so this was my first time explaining publicly what had happened to me throughout that process.
But the experience was also really empowering. I spotted a BC judge eating lunch at a table by himself on the second day, and I, a fellow resident of British Columbia, took my tray and myself, heart pounding out of my chest, over to sit across from him. We talked over lunch.
Most importantly, I remember the inclusivity of the entire experience. I remember listening to people who were senior members of the justice system talk about Access to Justice and acknowledge that there was a problem. I remember hearing some vigorous debates and differing opinions. And I remember feeling that I had a legitimate place, and voice, in the conversation.
For the first few nights after returning home, I would lie awake trying to fall asleep, while my mind replayed the conversations I had heard and taken part in.
My mind was alive with hope and all the possibilities for change.
Julie’s Memories of the First Dialogue Event
Pulling together an event that put SRLs in the same room and at the same tables as judges, lawyers and policymakers was regarded as “interesting”, but completely wacky in 2013.
It had never happened before.
I saw the way that justice system insiders shuddered at the mere mention of a “self-represented litigant” in 2011 when I had begun the national research study. I spent months persuading funders to provide money to bring the SRL delegates to the original Dialogue Event, and many hours sweet-talking justice system leaders into attending (with notable exceptions, as some leaders leapt at the unique opportunity). I also experienced the outright hostility of some judicial offices to the idea of a stakeholder dialogue including members of the public.
The event itself was an extraordinary experience. Listening to SRLs like Jennifer speak of their ordeal in front of a legal audience for the first time gave me shivers. The impact was profound. Attendees still talk to me about “how they felt” during the first dialogue event.
So… what has changed over the last 5 years, and what has not?
Familiar Fault Lines
As the delegates at the second Dialogue Event dug into deeper conversations on Friday and Saturday, the collegiality continued, but some familiar tensions began to emerge.
Of course, there are many perspectives on what it will take to really move the needle on A2J improvements in Canada. And there is a sense of impatience that despite all the talk, many things have not changed all that much in the walk. There are fundamental schisms. Notably: how can lawyers provide genuinely affordable services to a public who considers $500 an hour just too much to pay for anything; how can judges interact more supportively and constructively with SRLs in their courtrooms without compromising their duties; and how to call out “sharp practice” by opposing counsel who smell “blood in the water” when they see the other side is self-represented, and where to draw the line on ethical/unethical conduct in an adversarial system.
Digging Deeper
We’ve come a long way in the last five years even in just acknowledging that the justice system belongs to all of us. Joining judges from around the country in sending greetings to the Dialogue Event, but especially addressing the SRL delegates, Justice Jim Williams of Nova Scotia put it perfectly: “It is your system as much as mine, or that of anyone else. Change should and will involve all stakeholders – sharing, listening, considering, learning. Your perspectives are unique. Your influence is important.”
The power of this statement is still largely unrealized. A justice system that truly belongs to the public would mean that all elements of that system would be actively engaged in finding solutions, big and small, technological and human, to improve access for all Canadians. It would also mean that more members of the public would be invited into the inner circles: to participate in A2J initiatives, to add insight to policy committees, and to have opportunities for dialogue. If the justice system is to belong to us all, then we truly must have the will to think about A2J differently, and be honest about what this really means.
It means sharing power, not tossing crumbs.
As one SRL put it – politely, but frankly – as the latest Dialogue Event wrapped up, “there’s a paternalistic attitude to dealing with SRLs that frustrates SRLs. We feel ostracized when we interact with any member of the justice system, no matter how nice or well-meaning they are.”
The honesty of this statement hung in the air. It could not even have been articulated a little more than five years ago, prior to the original Dialogue Event, when no opportunities for exchange between the public and justice system “insiders” existed. It is a sign of progress, in that regard.
Then and Now: The Same Challenges
In the coming weeks, NSRLP will put together a detailed report covering the plenary discussions and working group proposals gathered from the recent Dialogue Event. I (Julie) shall blog about some of these, and I hope so will other participants.
However, we are struck by the fact that our first week of reflections on the Event – the product of an incredibly dedicated and compassionate group of attendees – brings us full circle back to the recommendations of the National SRL Study (10 Action Steps). They are as relevant, and certainly more urgent, today than they were in 2013, before the NSRLP existed as a nonprofit organization here at the University of Windsor.
The first Action Step was “How We Think about Change”: acceptance that the A2J crisis is real and is not going to go away by itself. Action Step 2 was “Listening to SRLs”. If you are an A2J activist, this is the time to take these commitments to action seriously.
SRLs are no longer begging to be included in policy discussions about the future of the Canadian legal system, and then simply feeling flattered to be included as a token gesture. As members of the public, whose taxes fund the justice system, they are now demanding a seat at the table. They are asking justice system insiders “how much longer can we wait for real change?”. And SRLs expect to be treated like reasonable, intelligent people, not burdens on the system.
Next Steps?
The conversations among the insiders and the outsiders at the second Dialogue Event were at turns uplifting, energizing, inspiring, tense, fraught and, occasionally, intractable. They were also framed by the reality that as time goes by, public loss of confidence in Access to Justice in Canada makes the achievement of Action Step 10 – “Re-Building Public Trust” – increasingly hard to imagine.
Truly advancing how we think about change, listening to SRLs, and rebuilding public confidence is going to take some bold initiatives. A collective will to do things differently is required across the justice system.
What about a Dialogue Event in every province and territory, where the users and the providers of “justice” in Canada come together as equals, and contribute their different but complementary expertise and perspectives? (If you are interested in organizing a provincial dialogue, please get in touch with the NSRLP.)
Working together raises many challenges, but is well-worth it, and is the only way forward. Let’s keep at it.
Wonderful article…thank you!