This research was conducted by David Lundgren in partnership with the National Self-Represented Litigants Project as part of the course, “Community Research Partnerships in Ethics” at the University of Toronto. “Inaccessible Justice” centres around a more realistic characterization of who self-represented litigants are and the issues they face. Notably, it explains how the reality of self-representation starkly contrasts the ideal purported by government sources. It also addresses ‘Who self-represented litigants are’ and how they are treated based on sex, socio-economic factors, and vexatious designations. Overall, self-represented litigants suffer from a myriad of problems that are inherently connected to barriers to accessing justice. The main analysis of the report introduces the data from the National Self-Represented Litigants Project’s annual Intake Form. It provides a brief description of the methodology used and an introduction to AI and machine learning models to contextualise the discussion. The results examine the intersections between the self-represented problem and social injustices stratified along gender, ethnicity, income, age, and education levels.
I had a quick look through the report. I’m not dismissing it, but as a non-academic (as well as non-lawyer) and as an experienced SRL I don’t feel equipped to get much from it. My response to the statement that, “More data needs to be tracked on who Canada’s self-represented litigants are, the problems they face, and how those problems manifest outside of the legal system”, is that while more data may be useful, we’ve long had more than enough to appreciate what needs to be done, and yet (in my opinion) nothing has been done.
.
The key conclusions I came to years ago include that there is no separation between the bar (that includes all the lawyers paid out of the public purse) and the bench, and that these two communities share an attitude that is entirely resistant to accepting what needs to be done. While the system is certainly facing unprecedented challenges, they seem to believe that they can weather those challenges and keep the system pretty much as it is. Why do I think they are wrong? I’ll answer that question in a second comment.
The evidence that they are wrong is not neatly packaged in one place. One needs to view a very large canvas. Among the latest examples of evidence is a conference held in Ottawa over four days starting last October 31. The full programme is found here – https://www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/public-resources/iojt2022-program-brochure/ . I have already learned a lot from examining that programme and I have shared some of what I’ve learned with others, including the IOJT’s outgoing president, Israel’s Eliezer Rivlin. Look through that programme for what it offers the public. I’ve found virtually nothing. It was for the benefit of the international judicial community. One should not presume that anything that benefits the judicial community automatically serves the public interest. I note that Professor and former Justice (of Israel’s Supreme Court) Rivlin was succeeded during the conference by Canada’s retired justice, the Honourable C. Adèle Kent. With a search using her name I’ve just found this article – https://www.ijsj.ie/assets/uploads/documents/2.%20Adele%20Kent%20final.pdf . The entire contents of that edition of the Irish Judicial Studies Journal can be accessed here – https://www.ijsj.ie/editions/2022-edition-1/ . Before I had my first courtroom experience I would not have questioned what such articles say. But certainly after my second courtroom experience I could no longer accept such claims about what judges bring to the role of judging. One of the inquiries I now intend to make is about how much public money was spent on that conference.
A very important analysis presented here, addressing key issues among the current state of our justice system. Very well worded too, I think your point of view deserves some voice as we push into new understandings of self-identification. Not an easy approach to take without facing some criticism in such an intense political climate, so good on you for digging into this statistical research and bringing awareness to these issues. It’s a great read!
Your paper provides a realistic depiction of self-represented litigants and the challenges they face, exposing the disparities between idealized government portrayals and actual experiences. By examining factors such as gender, socio-economic status, and vexatious designations, you highlight the interconnected barriers to accessing justice. The incorporation of data from the National Self-Represented Litigants Project’s Intake Form and the introduction of AI and machine learning models add depth to your analysis. Your paper is a valuable contribution to the field, emphasizing the need for equitable access to justice and advocating for systemic change.
Well done!
I enjoyed the paper very much and nice to know I am not alone. You have created awareness and that is GREAT!