Mary Ann Lynch
Government and Media
Counsel
Dear Mary Ann,
It was a pleasure to
talk with you by phone on Wednesday afternoon and to share a few thoughts about
the very troubling 74% ‘pro se’ problem in Maine’s family courts. 74% is a
powerful number that speaks to a socially unacceptable differential status of citizens/voters
in the face of justice. My purpose in
calling you was to be a “catalyst” for
broad based problem-solving concerning the ‘pro se’ phenomenon. It seems to be
growing numerically by leaps and bounds, despite valiant, well-documented
efforts by your associates to contain it.
To me, as a former
public health planner, there appears to be a lack of data about the nature of
this problem that would be a vital necessity in designing a strategic
intervention to reduce this unacceptable 74% number. The problem of ‘pro se’
numbers also appears to suffer (paradoxically) from well-intended attempts to
try to solve the ‘pro’ se’ problem with inadequate problem definition. It puts
“answers to the problem” before adequate “problem definition”, and thereby
places the cart in front of the horse. Without wishing to disparage the ongoing
work being attempted by those associated with the Maine Judicial Branch and the
Maine Bar, I would suggest that there are some serious planning questions that
need research and study before seeking answers.
Here, in brief, are
a few of my thoughts, a recap and elaboration on our earlier phone discussion:
WHAT SHOULD THE
GOALS FOR ANY ‘PRO SE’ INTERVENTION BE?
In any thoughtful, large scale, organized government plan, one needs clearly
stated goals to aim for- and to keep the movement towards goals on target. I
would suggest- tentatively - that the aim for the ‘pro se’ problem should be to
reduce the incidence and prevalence of ‘pro se’ as a phenomenon in Maine family
courts - “to move the “numbers needle” backwards”. To use a public health
conceptualization, one might say ‘pro se’ is a growing epidemiological problem.
What is the “epidemic” about, how is it spread over Maine’s “at risk”
populations, who is vulnerable, what factors are causing it, what exacerbates
its growth, what diminishes its growth and what “interventions” might well
organized data suggest would be most effective? To that end, I suggest a sample
of some very generic questions that an epidemiologist might ask before
intervening in any epidemic.
WHAT IS THE NATURE
OF MAINE’S FAMILY COURT ‘PRO SE’ PROBLEM? Beyond anecdote, who are the 74% of
people who do ‘pro se’’ in Maine’s family courts? What sort of demographics do
they represent? What ages, occupations, education levels, financial status, duration
of marriage, number of children, geographic locations, previous
marriages/relationships, health/mental health status? What are the reasons that they are doing ‘pro se’? Financial reasons (examples)? Or other
reasons? All of these data would be
useful tools in shaping rational problem-solving. Without such data, solving
problems can only be based on anecdote, guess work, personal impressions,
prejudice and bias. Bad information, as everyone knows, leads to bad answers!
DOES HAVING A LAWYER
MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUTCOME OF DIVORCE AND CUSTODY? What is the statistical
record for various types of outcomes for ‘pro se’ litigants? How do things go
when one party has a lawyer and the other doesn’t? What factors favor what outcome
when both parties have a lawyer? Are there statistics for law firms and lawyers
showing records of wins and losses? How do ‘pro se’’, lawyers, and judges view
the contest?
HOW DO ‘PRO SE’
LITIGANTS FEEL ABOUT THEIR COURT EXPERIENCE? Were they helped to do pre-court
paperwork? Was the help that they received effective or was it confusing? Did
they get help or coaching before going to court? From what kinds of helping
sources? How do ‘pro se’ litigants feel about their courtroom experience? Were they put at ease by the judge? Were they
treated respectfully? Did they encounter judicial hostility or overt rejection?
Were they listened to? How did they handle evidentiary challenges (“object,
object, object!”) from opposing counsel? Were they included in all conferences
and administrative issues? Did they feel that they received treatment in court
equal to opposing counsel (if there was one)? Do they have ideas for
simplifying the process for making it less time consuming, fairer and with
happier resolution? How were they and their children impacted by the personal
stress of the ‘pro se’ experience and
its aftermath?
HOW DO FAMILY COURT
JUDGES FEEL ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH ‘PRO SE’ LITIGANTS? What kinds of
problems do they experience? What impact does ‘pro se’ have on courtroom
procedures and process? What are the biggest challenges in this situation for
judges? What would they suggest to solve some of the problems associated with
‘pro se’? Do they have suggestions that might diminish the incidence of ‘pro
se’ ?
HOW DOES THE DIVORCE
BAR SEE THE ‘PRO SE’ PROBLEM? Does everyone in a divorce and custody situation
need a lawyer? What type of cases may not need a lawyer? What about pre-court legal “coaching”? What
about paraprofessional lawyers? What about defining custody as 50-50 in all
cases- except proven abuse? What other ideas? What about disincentives for
lawyers? What about fee caps on all cases, or needing certification from a
judge to bill beyond a certain $$ figure?
Please, do not take
the preceding paragraphs as any sort of concrete proposal. The remarks above
are offered only as possible examples of epidemiological data for use in a very
classic, rational problem solving process. The questions are more to get a conversation
about planning going- or to say, we don’t want to go there, because...
To my thinking, all
three branches of government should be involved in any such a conversation
leading to a plan for action. The core issue at the heart of the ‘pro se’
problem problem is about how we are to treat Maine families and children in the
throes of divorce and custody. It is a question about the well being of a
sub-population of huge importance to the
future of Maine. Interest in the topic goes way beyond the interest and
practices of one branch of government and one profession. Ideally all three
branches of government should work on the issue and should sponsor the
supportive legislation to enable the work. As to the question of who might
best do such a study or variations thereof in
the interest of the public, my vote would be for
OPEGA; others might have other
choices. My personal aim would be to eliminate the dominance of “special
interests” of stake holders from the “divorce industry”, who have been the
dominant players heretofore. They don’t represent the people.
I hope this gives a
bit more flesh on the bare bones we discussed on Wednesday? It is still
skeletal! It is just a beginning of a
much needed larger conversation.
Thanks for your
time, your always valuable perspective and your in depth knowledge of the
Judicial Branch - and Maine government.
Sincerely,
Jerry Collins
CC: MeGALert
If you have had a
bad experience in the Family Court systems as a Pro se litigant. Please
contact us at TheProseWay@outlook.com or find us on
Facebook.
