shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress

On July 6, the 9th Circuit held in United States v. Forrester that Mark Forrester did not knowingly waive his 6th amendment right to counsel where the trial court judge did not adequately explain the charges against Forrester or the possible penalties he faced.

According to the Metropolitan-News Enterprise,  Forrester had been charged with “conspiring to manufacture and distribute” Ecstasy.  A year into the case, Forrester filed a motion to defend himself.  From the Metropolitan-News:

At the hearing on his motion, U.S. District Judge Thomas J. Whelan of the Southern District of California repeatedly warned Forrester that defendants who represent themselves rarely succeed.

His remarks included the admonishment, “I want to unequivocally tell you and strongly recommend to you that you don’t do this. In most cases it’s a disaster.” He also told Forrester that “in all cases it is not a good idea for a nonlawyer to oppose a lawyer in a criminal trial.”

Though he did offer caveats, Whelan did not inform the defendant of the charge against him. He also told Forrester incorrectly that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years to life in prison when, in fact, he faced no minimum sentence and a maximum of 20 years behind bars.

After Forrester gave repeated assurances that he was “coherent,” “literate,” and aware of the consequences of self-representation, Whelan granted his motion to appear pro se at trial as well as at some of the post-trial proceedings.

At a follow-up hearing in March, the judge addressed various concerns pertaining to Forrester’s self-representation, but again did not talk about the charge against him. Nor did he correct his previous error about the potential sentence Forrester faced.

The Court noted the high burden placed on the government in waiver of counsel cases and found the fact that the trial judge did not specify the charges particularly damaging.  The Court also found it irrelevant that the trial judge had actually overstated the possible penalities that Forrester faced. 

While trolling the news for useful information to post on shlep, I came across this blog post at Consumerist.com.  It advises people who are being pursued by debt collectors to make sure that the company who is trying to collect really owns the debt that it’s claiming the person owes.  They also point to this great article offering tips for people being sued by debt collecters over at Alabama Consumer Law Blog. 

I have heard about Consumerist before, but today was the first time I visited their web-site, and I highly recommend it.  They analyze new products, discuss the customer service of various companies, and as the above article indicates, offer useful tips for consumers who are dealing with various sorts of problems related to buying and selling.  It’s a great web-site for all things related to consumer rights.

A quick perusal of the archives showed pages dealing with debt collection, early termination fees, fraud, and identity theft, and much more.  You can also send them tips when a company treats you unfairly.  Check it out. 

EARTHtimes.org is reporting that today Bank of America expanded a pro bono effort it has been working on since 2005 by

partnering with Sanctuary for Families, Neighborhood Entrepreneur Law Project, Volunteers of Legal Service, New York Family Court, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, and several major law firms to help ensure the legal needs of the city’s underserved and vulnerable are met.

The project will be centered in New York City.  In developing the program, Bank of America consulted with its New York Legal Department for information about issues and causes of interest as well as time constraints on the lawyers. 

Of special interest to shlep readers: One project that Bank of America lawyers will be participating in is the Self-Represented Legal Services Project at Brooklyn Family Court, covered by shlep previously here and here. 

The Edwardsville Intelligencer, the main newspaper for Madison County, IL, is reporting that the Madison County Law Library, located in the county courthouse basement, has opened a new self-help center to assist pro se patrons with navigating the court system.

The center will be staffed by court officials as well as Chief Judge Ann Callis for 15 hours a week.  It’s major focus seems to be on helping users to understand the basics of going to court such as how to behave and the roles of various court officials, as opposed to substantive legal matters. 

Although a more substantive program would likely prove more helpful, the new self-help center is certainly a start in a county with a poverty rate of 11.2%.

An article in the June 4th edition of Missouri Lawyer’s Weekly discusses the recent debate in the state legal community over the Missouri Supreme Court’s proposed rules for assisting pro se litigants through the court system.

The proposed rules would allow court clerks to provide information and forms to pro se litigants.  Proponents argue that the help is badly needed, but opponents say the proposed rules are tantamount to allowing the unauthorized practice of law.  Some also argue that the court system is simply too overstrained already to take on this new task:

“The crux of the issue is therefore whether the court system should put itself in a situation of straining its already inadequate resources and modifying its traditional role in the legal system (not by merely judging, but by assisting litigants) so that individuals may accomplish, without a lawyer, a task which is admittedly best performed with a lawyer,” the Clay County association said in the letter.

“‘To hell with poor people’; that’s what that paragraph says to me,” said St. Louis County Circuit Judge Dennis Smith. “‘Courts exist for the rich. ‘ I don’t believe that. If you are poor and can’t afford an attorney, what are you supposed to do? I’m open to suggestion if any other attorney in the state has an idea of how to help these people.

 The comment period for the proposed rules ends July 1.

On Monday, May 22, the Supreme Court decided Winkelman v. Parma City School District, which Shlep has been covering as it made its way through the courts.  To recap briefly, the case involved two parents, the Winkelmans, of a disabled child who were unsatisfied with the education their son was receiving under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  After going through the proper administrative channels, the Winkelman’s appealed to federal court, acting as their own, or alternatively as their son’s, counsel.  The case was dismissed in the Sixth Circuit because the parents were held to not have a right to bring the case to court under IDEA and alternatively, not to have the right to act pro se on their child’s behalf. 

On May 22, the Supreme Court held that parents have a cause of action under IDEA.  They therefore did not reach the question of whether parents may act pro se on their child’s behalf.  However, as Scalia pointed out in his dissent:

Both sides agree…that the common law generally prohibited lay parents from representing their children in court, a manifestation of the more general common-law rule that nonattorneys cannot litigate the interests of another.

It is difficult to guage from the opinion whether the Court would now be open to reconsidering that rule.  The Court does note the tradition that parents have a special interest in their children’s education, but this is a far cry from extending that right to representing the child in legal matters before the court, even those dealing with this fundamental right.

For more commentary, SCOTUSblog  covered this decision in depth, and also links to media coverage at NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and elsewhere.

     It’s been four weeks since I announced my retiring as Editor of this weblog and my hope to pass the SHLEP torch to a group of committed persons willing and able to continue its important role in the pro-se/self-help community and movement.  To date, I am sorry to say that no candidates have stepped forward to adopt shlep.  Despite the posting hiatus, we’re still getting about 250 visits a day, most from search engine queries, taking advantage of our deep content.  Please browse the site, and see our prior post and About page, describing why shlep deserves to be an ongoing, frequently-updated weblog, Our high search engine profile also suggests that it would make a great resource as part of a website with complementary goals. 

• If you would like to discuss taking over responsibility for SHLEP, please send an email to: shlep AT localnet DOT com. [no spaces in the actual email address]  I will do all I can to make the transition as smooth as possible.

  If shlep were active over the past month, it surely would have informed you of such stories as:

1. Oregon House Bill 2316, which aims to increase the small claims jurisdictional limit from $5,000 to $7,500, and has now passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. (via April 9, 2007 HALT ejournal)
2. The Edmonton Journal story “Law service shows lay people the ropes: Alberta Justice hopes information centres will reduce backlogs in court” (April 18, 2007), which details the opening on April 2nd of on-site Family Law Information Centres, offering assistance to self-represented litigants in Alberta. (via SelfHelpSupport.org)
3. The companion bills introduced in the New Mexico House and Senate, in the 2007 legislative session, which would rewrite the definition of the practice of law so broadly that they would require consumers to retain the services of a lawyer for virtually any legal need. (via March 26, 2007 HALT ejournal)  

Until shlep is once again updated regularly under new management, check out the SelfHelpSupport.org homepage and the HALT website and bi-weekly newsletter (which you can have delivered free by email) for a bit of news and commentary about pro se and self-help issues.  Meanwhile, if you can help find a good home for shlep, please let me know or urge the likely candidates to step up and grab this opportunity.