Written by Jennifer Leitch, NSRLP Executive Director; originally published on Slaw, Canada’s online legal magazine.
Recently, NSRLP participated in the 2024 National Pro Bono Conference, held in Montreal. The two-day event brought lawyers, academics, community workers and judges together to discuss issues of access to justice – and to identify and share initiatives aimed at tackling the multitude of challenges associated with a lack of access to justice.
In reflecting on that experience, what remains evident is that if we are to take these problems seriously, it is necessary to engage a variety of stakeholders in their resolutions. This requires the cooperation and commitment of government, the profession, the judiciary, those working in access to justice, and the public. No one stakeholder will be successful going it alone. Pro bono organizations are of course acutely aware of this fact, because they rely on the generosity and sense of moral obligation of the members of the profession. However, in one example, Pro Bono Ontario’s Impact Report from 2022 indicates that only 5% of Ontario’s 57,000 lawyers volunteer with their organization – notwithstanding being one of the largest in the country (see PBO’s 2022 Impact Report).
One soon-to-graduate law school student raised this very concern to the panelists of a plenary session in which I participated. The answer from the panelists encompassed the need to engage more fully all those at the access to justice table. One such group represented in that particular discussion were members of the judiciary – Associate Chief Justice Catherine La Rosa of the Superior Court in Quebec and Chief Justice Morrissey of Maryland represented the important impact the judiciary can have in improving access to justice.
There are certain realities that reinforce the need for the judiciary to be engaged in access to justice solutions. First is the accepted fact that a significant number of individuals cannot afford legal services (some self-reflection on behalf of the profession is needed here). Second, and somewhat in contradiction to the first reality, is the fact that we may not wish to provide every person who has a legal problem with a legal representative in the traditional sense of legal service delivery (retainer and full representation).
The legal system would likely collapse under the weight of traditional legal representation in every single case – there are, in reality, some types of problems that people may be able and willing to resolve themselves, given the right information, direction, and support. As a consequence, individuals will continue to navigate the justice system on their own. And in fact, it appears that the number of individuals representing themselves is growing, not shrinking (an observation made by the above-named judges in the course of their careers).
Given all this, it is urgent that those working within the system account for and engage with the public entering that system as self-represented parties. Both of the judges participating in this plenary session were acutely aware of their responsibilities in this regard and have set about operationalizing the response they believe is needed.
In one specific example, as Chief Justice of Maryland, Judge Morrissey recognizes his unique capacity to affect change in courthouses across the state. In what he describes as a Court Help Toolkit, there are a variety of access to justice initiatives centered within the state court system that are all geared toward addressing different but overlapping challenges faced by individuals representing themselves. These include legal help-centres both in-person and online for remote and urban courts across the state of Maryland. The help centres are staffed by lawyers and provide summary assistance to millions of individuals.
Additionally, Maryland courts have developed online guided interview processes that assist individuals in preparing pleadings and filing those pleadings with the appropriate courts. There are also multi-lingual kiosks at the entrances to courthouses that guide individuals through the physical courtroom space, as well as a system that allows for an individual’s case file to move through multiple forms of assistance. The benefit of the latter is that the individual seeking assistance from a variety of in-person and online resources is not obligated to re-tell the history of their case at each new point of contact, a repetitive and draining process that can be challenging for SRLs. Many of these initiatives deploy technology to assist SRLs both before setting foot in a courtroom, and when they arrive.
Aside from implementing technology that can assist a multitude of litigants who would otherwise have limited options, there are democratic and people-centred lessons in situating all of this assistance within the very court system that people are attempting to access. Rather than being perceived as an intimidating place, or one that is exclusive to the justice system insiders who frequent courthouses, the courthouse becomes a hub for public assistance. It becomes the place you seek out when you have a legal problem or challenge. And this sends the right message to the public: ‘come to court to resolve your issues as citizens for whom the justice system was built and meant to serve, and we will assist you in that endeavour.’
Courts that develop means of access inspire public confidence in the justice system by signalling that they are trustworthy venues where people can resolve their legal issues and alleviate day-to-day hardship. So again, instead of being places from which people are frequently turned away, either literally (at court counters that reject filings by SRLs), or metaphorically (when SRLs are cast as legal system outsiders), courthouses welcome those same individuals and seek to meaningfully assist them in the resolution of their legal problems.
Thus, revamping courthouses in this manner facilitates direct participation by individuals in the institutions that govern them, imbuing a healthier democratic citizenry. Moreover, viewing courthouses as places where individuals’ problems can be identified, articulated, and ultimately addressed (with their direct participation) is also consistent with a people-centred approach to justice, providing assistance to individuals in the manner that they need, in centres they can access.
This is not to say that courts are the single answer to our democratic woes (of which there are many right now), or the answer to all of the challenges associated with access to justice. But the Maryland example provides an opportunity to think more broadly about where litigants need assistance, how they may be assisted, and as a consequence, how we might expand the points of contact for individuals seeking assistance. The delivery of assistance within the courthouse system also reflects the need for cooperation among different stakeholders – namely, the judiciary, government, and the profession.
Presumably, the advances made in the state courts in Maryland would not have been possible without such cooperation and a corresponding willingness of stakeholders to share responsibility for access to justice solutions across otherwise siloed jurisdictions and functions. Ultimately, access to justice will be improved only when all stakeholders take seriously the shared responsibility for addressing challenges, and we act on that sense of shared responsibility to expand the manner in and sites at which people may seek to resolve their legal problems. Expanding the openness of courthouses and providing different modes of assistance and support within them signals a commitment to meeting individuals where they express need, and encouraging the potential for justice.
