Originally published on Slaw, Canada’s online legal magazine; written by Julie Macfarlane. This is the eighth in a regular series of columns for Slaw, written by the NSRLP team.

I recently announced my intention to step aside as the Director of the NSRLP at the end of 2020. The primary reason is my health (I have cancer). I intend to spend the next year fundraising, to ensure the longevity and stability of the NSRLP as a permanent not-for-profit organization. This blog reflects our thinking about the core work of the NSRLP as we embark on an effort to secure its future – Julie Macfarlane

Why does there need to be a permanent national organization interacting directly with both the public and justice system professionals?

The only way the justice system can realistically adapt to changes in public culture and expectations around disputing will be to include the users of the justice system in each step of analysis and redesign. NSRLP has been promoting the inclusion of members of the public with experience in the justice system since its inception; collaboration between users and system experts is a key part of our mandate, which we work to put into effect every day.

We have been able to add SRLs to policy discussions, beta testing for new resources, and conference panels. On one memorable occasion, a dozen BC SRLs participated in the National Action Committee on A2J’s annual meeting. NSRLP has hosted and facilitated two remarkable stakeholder dialogues that brought together judges, lawyers, legal aid plan managers, paralegals, and SRLs in face-to-face discussions on how to improve access to justice for those who have been forced to represent themselves. One of the greatest challenges NSRLP has faced, and still faces, is trepidation among the legal profession over working with those whom they call “non-lawyers” (have you ever heard of a “non-dentist”? A “non-engineer”? A “non-librarian”?). Yet each time we bring SRLs and justice professionals together to collaborate, everyone is energized by the experience.

No other organization in North America brings SRLs and justice professionals together in this way. (Our friends at the US Self-Represented Litigation Network currently network among professionals only, but are talking with us about how to move towards collaboration with the public.)

NSRLP has a unique template and a record of success in bringing together users and experts, recognizing that there are many people both inside and outside the justice system who feel passionately about systemic problems that result in a chronic lack of affordable justice for Canadians.

There are many questions we have to answer together

  • Why is the justice system failing so many people? The justice system is not working for most people. Legal services are too expensive, lawyers too often come across as bossy and condescending, and the administration of the courts still has a Byzantine feel, despite sincere (but all too piecemeal) efforts to make things better.
  • Is the formal justice system the place Canadians turn to when they have a dispute? In each successive study we have published since 2013, the percent of respondents who were over 50 has increased. This suggests that younger people are dealing with their disputes outside of the formal justice system. Where are younger people resolving their disputes? How many couples have given up on bothering to formally separate or get divorced because of the cost and hassle?
  • What types of assistance are users looking for? We are gradually widening and deepening our understanding of the services contemporary “savvy shoppers” need and want. For example, what legal services do the large group NSRLP calls “the primarily self-represented” prefer to spend their (limited) available funds on?
  • How do the consumers of legal services think about the “value” of legal services in the Internet age? Google has had a seismic impact on consumer access to knowledge, and changed the power balance in client relationships with legal and other professionals. How has that changed the attitudes of consumers and their capacity to act for themselves? And how can lawyers provide their expertise in a way that consumers value and want?

Trust must be rebuilt between the public and the justice system, trust in both its institutions and service providers. Whether you are a big city brand, a small town sole practice, or a courthouse, public trust is all important

NSRLP provides a bridge between the public and the justice system, committed to convening and facilitating necessary conversations that can address the critical challenges in providing access to justice.

We need to grow trust, and a trusted intermediary can help. NSRLP has been and will continue to be a trusted intermediary.

NSRLP’s research arm

Another NSRLP mandate is ongoing research on the SRL phenomenon. Our unique connection to SRLs enables us to continue to collect and publish data on the demographics, challenges, and motivations of SRLs across Canada in family and civil courts via our Intake Reports (a new Report is due out ….hopefully we can add URL here before publication). Policy-makers need access to empirical research data which NSRLP is uniquely well positioned to provide. We are also working to complete a comprehensive database of jurisprudence that systematically analyzes how the family and civil courts are responding to the challenge of SRLs, in relation to costs, accommodations, procedural fairness, and vexatiousness. All this research, which is constantly updated, is free and downloadable from the NSRLP website. But we need financial support to continue the demanding and time-consuming work of gathering data and publishing research reports.

 Help us help you

NSRLP’s collection of SRL “Primers” (recognized in the recent Clawbie awards) are about to be relaunched in a brand-new, more accessible format (including a focus on plain language and more engaging, user-friendly aesthetics). They are already a wonderful, widely used resource, and they are going to be even better thanks to the efforts of our plain language editor and graphic designer.

The Primers are used all over Canada (and in some parts of the US) by SRLs, court services staff, pro bono organizations assisting SRLs, and by individual lawyers and clinics. They aim to help SRLs to be more functional, both procedurally and psychologically – they are not a substitute for a lawyer, but they are informative and reliable, and provide a starting point and referral to other information and services. They are also free, and often all that an SRL has to prepare them to deal with the practical challenges or self-representation. We know that judges appreciate SRLs coming better prepared and with clearer expectations; we also offer information and guidance on how to work with a lawyer on the other side, stressing the importance of that working relationship. We help people without legal training to read a case report and research case law using CanLII. And all our Primers are “road tested” by SRLs before publication.

Public legal education has never been more important, and it must co-exist peacefully with affordable legal services. Resource development, the third of NSRLP’s mandates, has provided us with unique experience in creating materials for the public, responding to areas of need that they indicate to us (for example, how to access a transcript, how to swear an affidavit), and above all, ensuring reliable legal information and procedural assistance.

We need a permanent NSRLP in Canada. Please help us get there. At our current staffing (and we work crazy long days!), we need just $250,000 in core funding per year – yes, we are lean and great value for money. Our target in 2020 is to raise a million dollars to secure the stability of NSRLP going forward.

We are reaching out to Canadians across the nation. We are in need of financial support through donations, visibility support through follows and shares of NSRLP social media accounts and web content, suggestions for potential partnerships to help our organization grow and flourish, and high-profile “NSRLP Champions” who can speak up about our value. If you would like to help, please email representingyourself@gmail.com. Thank you for your support!

7 thoughts on “The Value of the National Self-Represented Litigants Project

  1. Elizabeth Cummings says:

    Julie, I am extremely sorry to hear about your cancer. I will be sending massive amounts of love and light your way. You inspired me to continue self representing, and I actually won one. https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nslb/doc/2020/2020nslb13/2020nslb13.html
    Thank you. I hope the complete focus on your health finds you healed very soon.

  2. sandra olson says:

    the value of getting together with judicial system members is interesting, but what would be REALLY interesting, is finding out how many of the self represented on your lists have obtained justice as a result of your contacts, That would be of interest, Especially those of us who have been thrown out of courts and had our rights removed by a vexatious litigant designation, Our cases as far as i know,, continue to sit,, no lawyer will help by taking one,, and no court will hear anything to do with vexatious litigant designated self representeds, So,, what value do we get from this site?? What value do we get from attending the hadfield speach? How about any contact with judges?? They just re explain how important their work is,, and we are supposed to kiss their robes and walk away blessed. That is not justice,, There is no increase in the amount of justice being experienced by the self represented. So,, what do the people so squashed by the justice system do??

    1. Chris Budgell says:

      The answer to your final question – for me anyway – is try to understand the really fundamental problems and how the institutions run by the legal establishment are making themselves vulnerable to successful challenges. Not everyone will want to do what I’ve done and very few will have the time. I’m not a researcher – in the sense that the NSRLP has done research. But I was fortunate in having an initial case that, through a series of stages, revealed to me that the legal professionals – lawyers and judges – are putting themselves above the law. I don’t mean that rhetorically. I mean that very specifically.
      .
      So one institution that is in a real predicament is the Canadian Judicial Council. I use Google to check the media reporting on that agency every day. My view is that the process of dealing with complaints about judges should not go to such an agency, run by the judges. I believe that before this year is out, I won’t be the only person who understands how the CJC has put itself in jeopardy. Our MPs and senators can do the right thing and remove the responsibility for dealing with complaints from the CJC. One of the matters before the House of Commons right now is a bill purportedly enjoying multi-party support. Read carefully this response from the CJC issued just yesterday – https://cjc-ccm.ca/en/news/judge-led-training-strengthens-confidence-canadian-justice-system . Why did they feel a need to say anything at this point?
      .
      Then read this – https://cbr.cba.org/index.php/cbr/article/view/4537/4460 – 36 page article published last September. Read the very last sentence.

  3. Joan Penny says:

    God bless you Julie, faithful servant. Your work will live on and so will you. Joan, self rep from Edmonton to defend my mother from legal abuse which originated in a lawyer’s office: conflict of interest, misuse of the capacity assessment and misuse of power of attorney and personal directive: legalized elder abuse leading to incarceration in a nursing home and gross neglect as confirmed by the province of Alberta Protection of People in Care.

  4. Sending you wishes for a recovery and thanking you for all your hard work. I’ve been devoting all of my time (and resources!) into establishing the first virtual legal coaching practice and now have also launched the Legal Coaches Association, a non-profit devoted to advocacy work to promote legal professionals who become Certified Legal Coaches under the programs in development. I, too, do not appreciate legal professionals being referred to has “non-lawyers”. As a l lawyer myself, I truly appreciate the wealth of education and experience that law school and paralegal course graduates bring to the table and my goal is to have 500 new Certified Legal Coaches providing qualified legal services by 2025. Hopefully when the website launches in a few weeks, I can provide more updates to NSRLP on this exciting new non-profit association, which I truly believe will change the way legal services are delivered!

    1. Chris Budgell says:

      On first view (OK lawyers, prima facie) this idea sounds very promising. I just googled the term and found very little usage of it. But an interesting one is in a comment by Omar Ha-Redeye to an article by Julie Macfarlane posted on slaw.ca over six years ago – http://www.slaw.ca/2013/12/18/providing-legal-services-in-a-coaching-model-the-what-why-and-how/.
      .
      500 certified coaches in five years sounds fairly ambitious. Who do you envision certifying? Only practicing members of the bar? Or would you consider non-members of the bar who e.g. have law degrees or some other combination of credentials and experience?

  5. Chris Budgell says:

    I want to say something about public discourse in blogs and similar media.
    .
    I haven’t contributed any original posts to the slaw.ca website. Some of my comments have been blocked. I wasn’t too surprised when my latest attempt was not blocked because I addressed it to the author, who happens to be the president of CanLII.
    .
    Malcolm Mercer is in the habit of making long posts. I haven’t read all of this new one – http://www.slaw.ca/2020/02/14/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-what-can-we-agree-on-and-what-cant-we/. But I’d like to comment on what the opening paragraph says about inclusiveness – that is, of interested members of the public like me.
    .
    I had a career once in what used to be called the IT (Information Technology) industry. Our communications was loaded with acronyms that only IT people understood.
    .
    Mr. Mercer’s opening paragraph has four acronyms: RODA, EDI, LSO, and SOP. Almost anyone who visits slaw.ca will know that LSO is the Law Society of Ontario – the still relatively new name that replaced the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC). SOP? Well most current visitors will probably know this is the “Statement of Principles” that has been occupying the LSO’s members for quite a while now. EDI? Google / Wikipedia will suggest “Electronic Data Interchange”, which is what I was expecting. But no, it’s in the title of the article. RODA? That had me stumped. It stands for the “Roundtable of Diversity Association”.
    .
    Mr. Mercer likes to write long articles, but he tends to address them to a very narrow audience of fellow travelers. Is the overuse of acronyms a problem here on the NSRLP? I don’t think so, but the question hadn’t occurred to me. Whatever else we do let’s not get into this habit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *