1

TrackingtheTrendsoftheSelf-RepresentedLitigantPhenomenon:DatafromtheNationalSelf-RepresentedLitigantsProject,2017KailaScarrow,BeckyRobinetandJulieMacfarlane

2

TableofContents

1.Introduction...............................................................................................................3

2.WhoaretheSRLs?....................................................................................................4a.Genderandagebreakdown..............................................................................4b.Partystatus.............................................................................................................4c.Wastheothersiderepresented?.....................................................................4d.Doyouidentifyasapersonwithadisability?............................................5e.Firstlanguage........................................................................................................5f.Educationlevel.......................................................................................................6g.Annualincomelevels..........................................................................................6

3.WherearetheSRLsinthesampleappearing?...............................................7a.Civil/familylitigants............................................................................................7b.Provincialjurisdictionandcourtlevel.........................................................7

4.WhatkindofhelpdoSRLsseek?........................................................................8a.Haveyouworkedwithalawyertorepresentyouatanystageinthecaseinwhichyouarenowself-representing?................................................8b.Ifyouworkedwithalawyeratanystageofyourcase,inwhatcapacityweretheyretained?................................................................................9c.Ifyes,howsatisfiedwereyouwiththeservicesyoureceived?.........10d.Wereyouofferedunbundledservicesbythelawyeryouretainedearlier?......................................................................................................................11e.Ifyouwereofferedunbundledservices,howsatisfiedwereyouwiththese?.........................................................................................................................12f.Haveyoutriedtofindunbundledserviceswithoutsuccess?..............13g.Haveyoubeenofferedmediationservices?.............................................13h.Howoftendoyoubringasupportpersonwithyoutocourtappearances?...........................................................................................................13i.Doyouintroduceyoursupportpersonasa“McKenzieFriend”?......14

5.SRLStories:QualitativeData............................................................................14

6.Conclusions.............................................................................................................20

3

1.IntroductionFrom2011-2013,Dr.JulieMacfarlanestudiedtheexperiencesofself-representationinCanadainthreeprovinces:Ontario,BritishColumbia,andAlberta.1Sheconducteddetailedpersonalinterviewsand/orfocusgroupinterviewswith259self-representedlitigants(SRLs).2AfterthepublicationofDr.Macfarlane’sinitialreportin2013,SRLscontinuedtocontacttheNationalSelf-RepresentedLitigantsProject(NSRLP).Thisledtheresearchteamtodevelopan“IntakeForm”inSurveyMonkey3,inordertocontinuetocollectinformationfromSRLsacrossCanada.WhilethedataprovidedfromtherepliestotheIntakeFormislessdetailedthantheoriginalstudyinterviews,thequestionnairetracksSRLdemographicsusingsomeofthesamevariables,suchasincome,educationlevelandpartystatus.ItalsoasksquestionsabouttheSRL’sexperiencewithpriorlegalservices,mediationservices,andbringingasupportpersontocourt.TheIntakeFormalsoprovidesaglimpseintoSRLpersonalexperiencesbasedonafinalquestionwhichis“openformat”.NSRLPiscommittedtocontinuedreportingontheSRLphenomenon.OurlastreportonintakedataspannedfromApril1,2015-December31,2016,andincludeddatafrom73respondents.ThislatestReportpresentsdatafrom66respondents,collectedfromJanuary1,2017toDecember31,2017.4

1 FundedbytheLawFoundationsofOntario,Alberta,andBritishColumbia 2 JulieMacfarlane,“TheNationalSelf-RepresentedLitigantsProject:IdentifyingandMeetingtheNeedsofSelf-RepresentedLitigants”,2013.3 Awidely-usedsoftwareprogram.TheIntakeFormisavailablehere.4 Asonewouldexpect,somerespondentsleftquestionsunanswered.Theresultsprovidedhererepresentpercentagesofcompletedresponses.

4

2.WhoaretheSRLs?TheseresultsareverysimilartopreviousIntakeReports,aswellasthe2013Studydata.

a.GenderandagebreakdownOutofthe66SRLswhocompletedtheIntakeFormfromJanuarytoDecember2017,53%werefemaleand42%weremale(theremainderpreferredtoself-identifyornotsay).AgedatacollectedfromtheIntakeFormindicatesthat55%ofrespondentswereover50yearsold.25%were40-50yearsold,16%30-40and3%were25-30.Noneoftherespondentsindicatedthattheywereunderage25.Thissomewhatolderdemographicisalsoreminiscentofourpreviousreports.Itraisesaninterestingquestionaboutwhetheryoungerpeoplemightbedoingsomethingdifferentlytoresolvetheirdisputes?

b.Partystatus71%ofintakeformrespondentsindicatedthattheyweretheplaintifforpetitioner,while29%indicatedtheywerethedefendantorrespondent.

c.Wastheothersiderepresented?

Themajority(86%)ofSRLrespondentstoldusthattheotherpartywasrepresentedbycounsel(inthe2013Studythisfigurewas75%,andinthe2014-15IntakeReportitwas94%).Asinpreviousyears,thevastmajorityofSRLexperiencesthatwelearnofarematterswhereonesideisrepresentedbycounsel,andtheotherisnot.FromourconversationswithSRLswehavelearnedanecdotallythatthisrepresentationiscommonlyon-again,off-again–thatis,theothersidesometimeshascounselandsometimesdoesnot.Itisprobablysafetoassumethatthosereportingthattheothersidehascounselmeanthatatsomepointinthecasetheothersidewasrepresented.

5

d.Doyouidentifyasapersonwithadisability?

ThisquestionwasaddedtotheIntakeForminJanuary2017.Theresultssurprisedus.47%ofrespondentsidentifiedasapersonwithadisability5.Whilethisisobviouslyasmallsample,andtheresultmaybeskewedbyourfocusedoutreachthisyeartothedisabilitycommunity6,thesenumberssuggestthattherearemanydisabledpeoplewhoareself-represented.Itisimportanttoconsiderwhatthelegalsystempresentlydoes,andmightdointhefuture,toaccommodatetheirneeds.

e.Firstlanguage

ThemajorityofSRLrespondentsreportedthattheirfirstlanguagewasEnglish(81%).Although9languagesarelistedasoptions,thenexthighestresponsewas“Other”at13%.Frenchwasthethirdmostselected,at3%.ThisisunremarkablegiventhatourIntakeFormispresentlyavailableinEnglishonly.

5 Asking respondents to self-identify as a person with disabilities is consistent with Canadian law. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a definition of disability based on personal perception. See Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Montreal (City); Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Boisbriand (City), Can Lll (2000) SCC 27. 6NSRLPhasbeenreachingouttopeoplewithdisabilitiesoverthepastyearwiththeadditionofthePWD(PersonswithDisabilities)PrimertoourbankofresourcesforSRLsandtheaudiorecordingofallourSRLPrimers.

PercentageofSRLsWhoIdentifyasaPersonWithaDisability

No- 53%

Yes,Iamcognitvelydisabled-9%

Yes,Iamphsicallydisabled- 7%

Yes,other- 30%

6

NSRLPiscontinuingtoworktosecurefundingtomakeourresourcesavailableinFrench,inordertomakethemaccessibletoCanadiansinbothofficiallanguages.

f.Educationlevel

SRLrespondentsshowahighlevelofeducation:47%haveauniversityorprofessionaldegreeand22%haveacollegediploma.Thisyear’sresultsaresimilartothe2013Study,where50%ofrespondentsheldauniversityorprofessionaldegree.Inthe2015-2016IntakeReport,33%ofrespondentsheldauniversityorprofessionaldegree.

g.Annualincomelevels

Asinpreviousyears,wecontinuetoseethemajorityofthoserepresentingthemselvesreportinglowerincomelevels(below$50,000),withmostofthesebelow$30,000.

Inthe2017results,44%ofSRLrespondentsreportedtheirannualincomewasunder$30,000,and21%reportedanannualincomeof$30,000-$50,000.

Alsoconsistentwithearlierreporting,8%ofrespondents(also8%inthe2015-16IntakeReport,and6%inboththe2013Studyandthe2014-15IntakeReport)reportearningmorethan$100,000.

EducationalLevelsofSRLs

Nohighschooldiploma- 9%

Highschooldiploma- 6%

College- 22%

University/professionalqualification- 47%

Other- 16%

7

Thisdataillustratesthatevenhigh-incomeearnerscannotaffordlegalservicesfortheentiretyoftheircase.

OursocioeconomicdataisconsistentwithotherstudiesthathavealsocollecteddataonSRLincome.Forexample,theCaseswithoutCounselstudy(2016),conductedinfourUSstates,foundthatthatthelargestgroup(43%)ofSRLrespondentsearnedlessthan$20,000(US),andafurther27%earnedbetween$20-40,000.

3.WherearetheSRLsinthesampleappearing?

a.Civil/familylitigants

53%indicatedtheywerefamilylitigants,while47%saidtheywereinvolvedinacivilcase.

b.Provincialjurisdictionandcourtlevel

Byfarthelargestnumberofrespondents,63%,filedintheOntariocourts,followedbyrespondentsfromBritishColumbia(12%ofthetotalsample).Asinpreviousyears,the2017dataincludedafewrespondentsfromotherprovinces:NewBrunswick,Manitoba,PrinceEdwardIsland,Newfoundland,Yukon,NunavutandtheNorthwestTerritories.

WerecognizethatNSRLPneedstocontinuetoimproveouroutreachtoSRLsacrosstheentirecountry,inordertobroadenthegeographicbaseofthesample.

8

SRLsarepresentinalltypesandlevelsofcourtsandtribunals.Theseincludeprovincialsuperiorandprovincialsupremecourts,smallclaimscourt,federalcourtandavarietyofadministrativetribunals.

4.WhatkindofhelpdoSRLsseek?

Asinpreviousyears,wecontinuetobeinterestedinwhetherSRLshadpriorlegalrepresentationintheircase.InJanuary2017,webroadenedsomeoftheIntakeFormquestionsandintroducednewquestionstofurtherassessandexploreboththetypesoflegalservicesSRLssoughtout,andthequalityofservicetheyexperienced.Weintroducednewquestionsaboutaccesstoanduseofunbundledservices,moredetailedquestionsaboutSRLexperienceswithmediation,andquestionsabouttheuseofaMcKenzieFriend.Theresultsaresummarizedbelow.

a.Haveyouworkedwithalawyertorepresentyouatanystageinthecaseinwhichyouarenowself-representing?

Our2017IntakeFormasksSRLswhethertheyhaveworkedwithalawyertorepresentthematanystageintheircurrentcase.OftheSRLswhoresponded,68%statedthattheyhadworkedwithalawyeratsomepointduringtheircurrentcase.Thisisslightlyhigherthanthe2013Studyfigureof53%but

WherearetheRespondentslocated?

Ontario- 63%

BritishColumbia- 12%

Alberta- 11%

NovaScotia- 7%

Saskatchewan- 5%

Quebec- 2%

9

showsthesameunderlyingtrend–manypeoplewhoarenowself-representingbeganwithalawyerrepresentingthem,butatsomepointbecameunabletoexpendanymorefundsonlegalassistance.

b.Ifyouworkedwithalawyeratanystageofyourcase,inwhatcapacityweretheyretained?

InJanuary2017weaddedaquestiontotheIntakeFormthatwasaskedintheoriginalresearchstudy:whatwasthesourceofthelegalassistance(ifany)youreceivedbeforeyoubeganself-representing?Specifically,weaskedwhethertheirpreviouslawyerwasretainedthroughaprivatefirm,wasaLegalAidlawyer,orworkedprobono.7

Theresultsshowedthat61%ofSRLswhohadpreviouslyretainedlegalcounseldidsothroughprivatefirms,andjust15%vialegalaidcertificates.Thelownumbersreferencinglegalaidarenotsurprisinggiventhattheincomeeligibilityrequirementtoqualifyforlegalaidissolowthatitisincreasinglydifficulttoobtain,leavingmanywithverylowincomesunabletoaccesspublicassistance.824%ofthe2017respondentssaidthattheysoughtandwereprovidedwithprobonoservicesbeforetheybecameself-represented.Thisisasharpdeclinecomparedwiththe2013Study(where64%reportedtheyhadsoughtandreceivedprobonoservices),and58%inthe2015-16intakegroup.

7Privatefirmsregulatetheirownrates.SomelawyersacceptLegalAidcertificateswhichareissuedtoindividuals,basedonfinancialandlegaleligibility,andareusedtopayforalawyertorepresentanindividualforacertainnumberofhours.(Seehere)7Somelawyerswillworkprobono,meaningtheydonotchargefortheirservices.8Forinstance,inOntario,ifyouareasingleperson,toqualifyforfamilyorcivilLegalAidyourannualincomemustbelowerthan$13,635.

10

c.Ifyes,howsatisfiedwereyouwiththeservicesyoureceived?

Thiswasanewquestion.InourearlierIntakeForms,respondentswereaskedabouttheirsatisfactionwithanyearlierlegalservicestheyhadreceivedinanycase/matter.Thisspecificallyincludedlegalassistancebeforethematterinwhichtheywerenowself-representing,forexampleinacriminalmatter,awillsandestatesmatteroraconveyancingtransaction.Thisquestionwasasked(andalsointhe2013Study)inanefforttodetermineifindividualswhowereself-representingweredoingsobecauseofapastbadexperiencewithalawyer–inotherwords,iftheywerepredisposedtobenegativeaboutlawyersandlegalservices.Theseresultsintheseearliersurveysandinterviewsindicatedthattherewasnosuchcorrelation9andinsteadthattheprimaryexplanationforself-representationwasfinancial.

The2017questionisdifferent,becauseitasksaboutsatisfactionwithanyearlierlegalservicesreceivedinthiscase(inwhichtherespondentisnowself-representing).

Oftheindividualswhorepliedyes,theyhadworkedwithalawyeratanearlierstageinthiscase(68%ofthesample),65%saidtheservicestheyreceivedwere“poor”,23%saidtheywere“reasonablysatisfied”,andjust8%respondedthattheywere“wellsatisfied”withtheservicestheyreceived. 9Seethe2013Studyatpp35-36

EarlierLegalServices

PrivateFirm- 61%

LegalAid- 15%

ProBono- 24%

11

Becausethequestionsaredifferent,adirectcomparisonbetweentheseresultsandourearlierdataonrespondents’assessmentofsatisfactionwiththeirexperienceswithalawyerisinappropriate.However,itisnotablethatsatisfactionwithlegalservicesgenerallyseemstobefalling.In2013,35%ofrespondentssaidthattheirearlierexperiencewithlegalserviceshadbeen“poor”,andin2015-2016,thisroseto43%–inthe2017sample,dissatisfactionwasexpressedby65%.

Similarly,weseeasharpdeclineinthenumberofrespondentswhowere“satisfied”withtheirearlierlegalservices.In2015-2016,28%ofrespondentswere“reasonably/wellsatisfied”withthelegalservicestheyreceived.In2017,only8%ofthosereportingonpreviouslegalassistanceinthepresentcaseexpressedthemselvestobe“reasonably/wellsatisfied”(thisnumberdropsto5%amongthosewhohadretainedalawyerfromaprivatelawfirmratherthanreceivinglegalaidorprobonoassistance).Thisoutcomemaybetheresultofthehighexpectationsindividualshavewhenpayingforaservice,comparedtotheirexpectationswhenreceivingfreeormoreaffordableservices.

Evenallowingforthefactthatadirectcomparisonisnotappropriatehere–andthatthisisasmallsampleandthereisnocontrolforvariablesthatmightaffectindividualexperiences–theextentofdissatisfactionamongthe2017respondentsisstriking.

12

d.Wereyouofferedunbundledservicesbythelawyeryouretainedearlier?

Thisisanewquestion.Unbundledservices,alsoknownaslimitedscopeservices,arelegalservicesofferedbyalawyerforpart(s)ofaclient’slegalmatter,asagreeduponwiththeclient.Unbundledservicesareamoreaffordablewaytopurchaselegalservices,asopposedtofullscoperetaineragreements.Oftheindividualswhoresponded,25%wereofferedunbundledservicesbytheirlawyerand75%werenot.

e.Ifyouwereofferedunbundledservices,howsatisfiedwereyouwiththese?

Ofthoseofferedunbundledservices,43%ratedtheserviceas“poor”,57%marked“moderate/OK”,whilezerostatedthattheywerewellsatisfied.Itisunclear–andworrisome–whysomanySRLswerenotlargelysatisfiedwithunbundledlegalservices,whicharesometimesseenasanimportantpartofimprovingAccesstoJustice.Thisresultsuggeststhatweshouldaskmoredetailedquestionsaboutexperienceswithunbundlinginarevisedandupdated2018IntakeForm10. 10Forthcomingsummer2018.

SatisfactionWithEarlierLegalServices

(aggregatedprivate,legalaid,probono)

Poor- 65%

Moderate/OK- 23%

WellSatisfied- 8%

N/A- 4%

13

f.Haveyoutriedtofindunbundledserviceswithoutsuccess?

Ofthoserespondingtothisquestion,56%saidtheyhadsoughtoutunbundledlegalserviceswithoutsuccess.Weanticipatethatasthenumberoflawyerswhoofferunbundledlegalservicesincreases,thenumberofSRLswhocannotaccessthemwilldecrease.

Theremaining44%hadnotsoughtoutunbundledservices–however,theymaynothavebeenawareofthispossibilityinpurchasinglegalservices.Dependingonsatisfaction(see(e)above),weanticipatethatasawarenessofunbundledservicesincreasesamongSRLs,thenumberofpeoplewhosaythattheydidnottrytofindalawyerwhowouldofferunbundledservicesislikelytodecrease.

g.Haveyoubeenofferedmediationservices?

Risingfully10%fromlastyear’sdata,in201745%ofrespondentsreportedhavingbeenofferedmediationservices.46%ofrespondents(notnecessarilythesameindividualswhoreportedbeingofferedmediation)reportedtheyhadactuallyusedmediationservices.

Inthe2017IntakeFormweaddedaquestiontoaskwhetherthosewhousedmediationserviceshadreachedasettlementasaresult.Aresulting10%ofrespondentssaidtheysettledinfullthroughmediation,15%reportedsettlinginpartthroughmediation,and75%reportednotsettlingthroughmediation.SomeSRLscommentedthatmediationserviceswereunsuccessfulforthembecauseofalargepowerimbalancebetweenthemselvesandtheotherside(forexample,wheretherewasahistoryofdomesticabuse).

h. Howoftendoyoubringasupportpersonwithyoutocourtappearances?

Thepercentageofthosestatingthattheyhaveneverbroughtasupportpersontocourtwiththemincreasedfrom59%to67%.This2017dataisdiscouraging,andsuggeststhatfullytwothirdsofSRLsdonotfeelthattherelativecostsandrewardsofaskingsomeonetoaccompanythemare

14

worthwhile.Thismaybeinpartbecauseofconcernsthatweoftenhearof“burningout”supportpeople;itlikelyalsoreflectsacontinuingunwelcomingclimateinsomecourtroomsforSRLsupportpersons.Similartolastyear’sdata,22%ofSRLsreportedthattheysometimesbringasupportpersonwiththemtocourt.

i. Doyouintroduceyoursupportpersonasa“McKenzieFriend”?Thiswasanewquestion.Self-representedlitigantshavetherighttoaskthepresidingjudgeiftheycanbringaMcKenzieFriendwiththemtocourt.ThispersonispermittedtositbesidetheSRLatthefrontofthecourtroom.AMcKenzieFriendcanprovideagreatdealofsupportduringaproceedingorhearing;forinstance,theycanassistinorganizingdocuments,takenotesduringtheappearance,andprovideemotionalandmoralsupportduringtheappearance.11TheIntakeFormresultsshowedthatonlyasmallnumber(12.5%)ofrespondentsreportedintroducingasupportpersonasaMcKenzieFriend.AtNSRLP,weshallcontinuetopromotetheadoptionofaMcKenzieFriendprotocolbycourtsinCanada12andhopethatweshallseeachangeinthesenumbersasaresult.Forthetimebeing,however,itisclearthatmostSRLsgotocourtalone.

5.SRLStories:QualitativeDataThisyearweagaininvitedSRLscompletingtheIntakeFormtogiveusadditionaldetailsinafinalopenformsectionabouttheirpersonalexperienceswithself-representation,andtoofferanytipstheyhaveforotherSRLsgoingthroughthecourtprocess.

11“TheMcKenzieFriend:ChoosingandPresentingaCourtroomCompanion”. 12“TheMcKenzieFriend:ChoosingandPresentingaCourtroomCompanion”.

15

Manyrespondentsofferedstoriesthatdisplayedthelevelofstresstheyareburdenedwithwhiletryingtonavigatethecourtsystemontheirown:

One respondent described the amount of time spent trying to filedocuments in thecourthouse,only to realize theyhavebeencompletedincorrectlyoraremissingvitalinformation.WecontinuetoseeSRLsfeelingasthoughthelegalsystemisstackedagainstthemwhentheyarewithoutrepresentationandwithoutalegaleducation:

“Wait 2 to 3 hours [at the courthouse], when it is your turn to [submit] papers they are rejected due to mistakes . . . I was sent back 3 times [and] wasted 3 days”

“I have spent 5 years suffering the consequences of my inexperience, lack of knowledge, and submission to bullying

tactics.”

“I am hard pressed for time and under a great amount of

stress. Just trying to keep my head above the water and survive / get this over with ASAP.”

“Most of the time I was operating in a shock or trauma state and [it was] difficult to hear and understand what was taking

place, let alone digest [it] and make decisions.”

“This last Monday morning I woke up vomiting in anticipation of my coming court appearance date.”

16

Respondentscontinuetocommentaboutthepersonalfinancialimpactoftheprocess:

Wealsocontinuetohearfrommanyrespondentsthattheydistrustthelegalsystem,judgesandlawyers: Othersfeelthereisawidely-heldbiasagainstSRLsinthelegalsystem:

“I had representation in the courtroom until I could no longer afford to”

“(T)he method of obtaining justice does not exist within the

system designed to abuse them.”

“As a member of the lower caste--even if you get to court, are respectful, are well prepared, have strong arguments--you will

not receive fairness, equity or consideration. It is likely your argument will not be heard.”

“There are lots of dirty tricks used by lawyers.”

“it was too late for me to be able to return to court to fight for my true rights and entitlements because I was severely limited

by funds and the severe mobility restrictions due to the distance I had to travel to reach court.”

17

Asinlastyear’sreport,manySRLsofferedtipsandadviceforotherstolearnfrom.Wecontinuetoseedetailandprecisionintheadviceoffered.SRLsdescribedthechallengesofattemptinglegalresearch,howtoreadandunderstandcourtandproceduralrules,howtointeractwiththecourtandhowtoprepareforcourtappearances.TheycounselledotherSRLstolearnthecourtproceduresaswellaspossible,todotheirhomework,anddiginforalonghaul.Interestingly,giventhelownumbersreportingpresentingaMcKenzieFriendasasupportperson(12.5%),orindeedanyoneinasupportivecapacity,manyrespondentsremarkedontheimportanceofhavingasupportperson:

“Having someone who could be of moral support during this would help someone in the process”

“My advice to other SRLs is to not to seek justice since there is none. It is the worst experience I went through. You lose your mind and health from the judicial abuse.”

“As a SRL, the judge takes my court matter lightly and

consistently delays matters”

“Taking this on will consume you, and you will need the social network and resources around you for support”

18

Severalrespondentsdescribedtheimportanceofbeingprepared,butalsoknowingwhentocutlossesorlowerexpectations:OthersofferedwordsofencouragementtootherSRLsonhowtoremainstrongwhileenduringthecourtprocess:

“Keep fighting. Do not give in to scare tactics or agree to terms you don’t really want out of fear or desperation. Stand

your ground.”

“Going up against ‘aggressive’ counsel is scary but you have to speak up, don't be overcome by opposing counsel's level of sophistication, don't be silent when things do not make sense to you. The judge has an obligation to ensure that you have a

chance to a fair trial from a procedural standpoint ... [the] judge won't know that you don't understand unless you tell

them”

“It is a process and results take time (a long time) - and sometimes letting go of the outcome (if possible) all together as

health is more important

“Do your research. Meet with every resource. Be open minded. Know the law. Know the facts. Know when to cut

your losses.”

“Really getting expectations in check - lower them!”

“Do lots of research. Try to find time for your kids and partner as it can be all consuming while you undergo a court

procedure plus you end up using all your vacation time. When opposing counsel steps out of line . . . tell the judge about it.”

19

Wenoticedacontinuationofthetrendobservedlastyear13ofrespondentsofferingconcretepracticaltipsaboutmanagingthecourtprocessbasedontheirpersonalexperiences,andhowtomakeaverydifficultsituationalittlebetter:WearealsoseeingmorespecificadviceforSRLswhenpreparingforcourtappearances:

13"NewDataonSRLs:TheSpectacularRiseoftheSavvySelf-RepresentedLitigant".

“Go out of your way to be polite, respectful, courteous, self-effacing, and even charming with court staff. These folks are the court's front lines. They deal with all sorts of characters,

many of them not particularly nice. A little investment in pleasantry can pay big dividends when you need them to cut

you some slack.”

“Treat everyone in the court process—lawyers for the other side, judges, witnesses, etc.—with the same courtesy and

respect you would like to be treated with. Just because you disagree, you don't have to be disagreeable. Everyone

involved can make your project easier or harder.”

“Before researching case law, do some Google searches to see if you can find commentary on the particular aspect of the

law your case involves. Many lawyers and judges have written scholarly articles on particular facets of the law. This

can save a tremendous amount of time.”

20

6.Conclusions

a. IncomeLevelsSimilartoallourpreviousdata,themajorityofrespondentscontinuetoreportlowannualincomes,butthereremainsasignificantportionwhoearnclosertoamiddle-classincome,orhigher.Thisresultagainsupportsthehypothesisthatlegalservicesarenotviewedasaffordableoverthemidtolong-term,evenbyindividualsinhigherincomebrackets.

b. SRLswithDisabilities

AsurprisingnumberofSRLs–almosthalfofthe2017respondents–identifiedasapersonwithadisability,possiblyskewedbyouroutreachtothiscommunityin2017.Canada-widedatafrom2012reportsanestimated3.8millionadultCanadiansbeinglimitedintheirdailyactivitiesduetoanimpairment,representing13.7%oftheadultpopulation.14Forthosecomingalonetothecourts,adisabilityrepresentsanoftenoverwhelmingadditionalobstacle.

c. EarlierExperienceswithLegalServicesWeseeadramaticdeclineinthenumberofrespondentswhodescribethemselvesassatisfiedwithearlierlegalservices.Theadditionalelaborationandcommentsprovidedinouropen-endedquestionsreflectedthisdissatisfaction.

14 StatisticsCanada.“DisabilityinCanada:InitialFindingsfromtheCanadianIntakeformonDisability”.

“Try to keep the emotion out of your presentations. After you have written something for the court, go through it and delete adjectives and adverbs, and especially qualifying words like ‘very,’ ‘extremely,’ etc. Emotions will not win the day. Good

facts and solid legal arguments may.”

21

d. BeginningwithCounselandRunningOutofFunds

Thenumberofrespondentsreportingthattheyhad,atsomepointintheircase,theassistanceofalawyer,reinforcedakeyfindingofthe2013Study:thecostsoflegalservices(especiallywheretheseaccumulateovertime)meanthatmanycannotaffordtocontinuetopayforthem.Inthecommentssection,respondentsdescribedspendinglargeamountsofmoneyonthepreparationofcourtdocumentsandcourtappearancesbyalawyeruntiltheycouldnolongeraffordtotopuptheretainer.Weareseeingthesametrendaspreviousyears:thatindividualsaredepletingtheirresourcessignificantlyinordertoinitiallyhiretrainedrepresentation,butultimatelyenduprepresentingthemselves.

e. ContinuingtoLookforLegalAssistanceTheresultsofthe2017IntakeReportshowthatmostSRLsarestillactivelyseekingalternative,affordablelegalservices.ThenumbersreportingsuccessfullyaccessingprobonoservicesareworryinglylowerthanintheoriginalStudy(24%comparedwith64%in2013and58%in2015-16).Inthe2017IntakeFormweaddedanewquestionaskingaboutaccesstounbundledlegalservices,anotherwayindividualsmayreceivelegalservicesatalowertotalcost.Wesawthat25%wereofferedunbundledservicesbythelawyerwhomtheypreviouslyretained.Another55%soughtouttheseservicesontheirown,butwithoutsuccess.Disappointingly,manySRLswhoreceivedunbundledservicestoldusthattheywerenotfullysatisfiedorweredissatisfiedwiththem.Anecdotally,wehaveheardfromSRLsthatthehourlyrateforunbundlingisstilltoohigh,eventhoughtheyarerelievedoftheburdenofscrapingtogetheraretainer.Inthefuture,weshallaskmoredetailedquestionstohelpusunderstandwhysatisfactionissolow.

f. ExperienceswithMediationTherecontinuestobemorefamiliaritywithmediationservices.Inthe2017sampleweseeanincreaseinthenumberofrespondentswhoreportbeing

22

offeredmediationservicesaswellasthosewhoactuallyusedmediationservices.However,manyreportedthattheirexperienceswithmediationdidnotresultinfullorpartialsettlement.Weshallinvestigatethisquestioninfutureintakeformstoseewhethermediationoutcomesimprove.

g. AdviceforotherSRLsLastyearwewerestruckbythegrowingsophisticationandnuanceofthetipsofferedbySRLstootherswhofacesimilarcircumstances.In2017,wecontinuetoseeverydetailedadviceofferedtootherSRLs.Respondentsofferedpersonalexperienceswithpreparingcourtdocuments,preparingforappearances,howtoresearch,andhowtostaystrongduringtheextremestressandpressuresofnavigatingandengagingthelegalsystem.

h. PoorExperiencesoftheJusticeSystemandofSelf-RepresentationWecontinuetoseeSRLsfrustrated,overwhelmed,stressedanddefeatedbythelegalprocess.Manydescribedpoortreatmentbyactorsinthelegalsystem,facingaggressivecounsel,financialpressures,andagenerallackofunderstandingoftheplightofanSRL.Manyreportedthatthesestressesnegativelyaffectedtheiremotionalandphysicalhealth.Onthepositiveside,afewrespondentscommentedthattheysawsomeindividualimprovementsintheattitudesanddemeanorsofsomejudgestowardSRLs.

i. OngoingCommitmenttoAccesstoJusticeAwhopping94%ofrespondentsindicatedthattheywantedtobeaddedtotheNSRLPnewslettermailinglist,againchallengingthemyththatSRLsdonotretainaninterestinandconcernaboutAccesstoJusticeoncetheirownmatterisconcluded.

* * *TheintakeprocedureattheNSRLPisanongoingprocess.Weshallcontinuetomodifyintakequestionsbasedonthechangesweobserveandthegrowthofnewsubjectareaswhichrequireinvestigation.

23

Ifyouhavequestionsaboutanyofthedatapresentedhere,pleasecontactNSRLPatrepresentingyourself@gmail.com.Weappreciatetheinformationprovidedbyallourrespondents,anddoourverybesttoreflectitauthenticallyandcomprehensivelyintheseregularIntakeReports.