Unbundling Legal Services For Pro Se Litigants

Pro Se divorce litigants are increasing common in family courts, approaching 70% of cases in some areas. The Jefferson County Kentucky Family Court and Louisville Bar Association are assembling forms for these litigants to use. Law.com reports that two Massachusetts family courts are experimenting with lawyers providing limited representation. "Litigants who might have appeared before the court pro se now have the opportunity for limited representation, or unbundled legal services. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued an order in the Hampden and Suffolk divisions of the Probate and Family Court allowing lawyers to represent clients on a limited or one-time basis rather than throughout an entire case." Sounds like a promising solution to the courts being overwhelmed with unrepresented litigants.

Comments

[Todd Bolus]

Dang it - typos get me every time. "I meant "graceslessly criticized".

In any event, yes, we are interested in profit. I think I'd be hardpressed to find someone among the working poor who would gladly and eagerly do free work for a stranger, place that stranger's emotional angst upon their shoulders and become a whipping boy in the process. All this being done, mind you, while incurring the risk of liablity himself.

Perhaps when the working poor pay my secretary, my office rent, my mortgage, my office expenses, my medical insurance and my children's orthodontia, then they might have a claim to my labor.

In any event, a la carte, unbundled services will drive people out of practice,thereby rendering the hard issues unaffordable and unattainable to both the working poor and the bottom tier of the middle class.

While we're at it, I'm wondering if anyone has considered what happens to a pro se litigant who makes a misstep early in a case that haunts him or her at a later time. Some early decisions (like some agreed orders) are difficult to unwind, and they can set a tone early on, creating appellate issues where a different type of early handling would make an appeal unnecessary.

[Barry McCarthy]

Addressing Todd Bolus' comments: Lawyers are not concerned with helping the working poor.Their concerned, as indicated by Todd Bolus above, in profit.

[Todd Bolus]

Diana, it sounds like a great way to get sued to me. If there were some sort of qualified immunity built in, then it might work - but then there is another problem.

I can say that I'm tiring of the emphasis on whether the poorer members of the public get good service at a cheap price. Most practitioners need to make money at some of the "gimme" stuff just in order to make a living and maintain the facilities and staffing that litigants need to be available on the hard issues. This would be something that would make a frequently emotionally difficult living even harder. The problem with the proposed a la carte system is that while it might benefit an individual litigant on a short term basis, it will add stress to those who practice in the middle income tiers, in that it will ultimately drive up rates across the board (not to mention the repairs we'll have to accomplish when they mess their cases up).

In any event, I think we (as an organized group of practitioners) spend too much time attempting to meet the legal needs of the working poor by performing free or undercompensated work which is genereally cracelessly criticized. Frankly, we have a greater problem with the folks in the middle income tiers, who are growing more squeezed as time goes on.

[Marcy Cross]

I would like to know if live chat is available about unbundling legal services. If so, is anyone available immediately and knowledgeable about the state of Kentucky and Military Laws.
Thanks,
Marcy