One key method of improving citizen access to the civil justice system is through small claims courts. These courts – which use simplified procedures, require plain English, provide consumer aids and often prohibit lawyers – have tremendous promise as a means of empowering ordinary people to take charge of their own routine legal needs.
“findings from a new study that silences concerns that higher dollar limits would produce an onslaught of new cases, straining the system to its breaking point. Drawing on state-by-state caseload data in the study, HALT conclusively proved that a rise in jurisdictional limit very rarely leads to a larger caseload.”
“in most cases, a dollar-limit hike causes caseloads to change very little, if at all. On average, a court experiences only a 5.4% increase in caseload during the first year after a dollarlimit increase, which is within the range of average variation in a normal year. Furthermore, five years after the jurisdictional increase, the caseloads of five out of six courts return to their pre-increase size. In short, whatever small increase there is initially, it will dissipate quickly and have little effect on the courts’ caseloads or resources.”
Sometimes, I wish the demographics of the weblogiverse were skewed a bit more toward baby boomers and senior citizens, rather than the under-30 crowd. I think that small claims reform would be a perfect cause for many senior citizen groups (hint being sent here to The Senior Corps, AARP’s Legal Counsel for the Elderly, and the ABA Senior Lawyers Division). No group of Americans are more willing and capable of asserting their rights, putting pressure to bear on political leaders, or insisting on (and using) well-designed self-help materials.
Someone’s got to seriously commit themselves to these goals, if we’re going to start making the judicial system accessible for the everyday legal disputes of the average consumer (and small business). As a bonus, small claims reform, when done right, includes a mediation component that will resolve many disputes in a way that further minimizes court resources and future disputes. Everybody could win. So, let’s get off our butts and start taking some giant steps toward accessibility.
- One suggestion for increasing public awareness of reforms at small claims court: talk to your local tv station’s consumer advocate and get some free publicity for increased dollar limits, computer-assisted technology, hardcopy and e-brochures, etc.
Update (01-11-04): Carolyn Elefant has a thoughtful follow-up piece on this topic today at MyShingle, asking good questions and offering suggestions worth pursuing (including having concurrent jurisdiction with trial courts for higher dollar amounts), as we move toward the main goal of improving access. As I replied at Carolyn’s site, “I would be very happy with $10,000 maximum limits at this point in small claims courts, if the rest of the reform package is adopted: Make small claims courts more user-friendly; take advantage of technology to increase self-help resources and efficiencies; make mediation available; and publicize so that the public knows this tool for access is available and effective.”
Last year, Stuart Levine of the Tax & Business Law Commentary left the following Comment at our post about the situation (shenanigans) in Maryland:
“The increase in the District Court’s exclusive jurisdiction may be good or it may be bad, but it’s clearly not good for small defendants, usually individuals seeking to fend off claims (presumably disputed claims) of corporate creditors. The bill strips the right to have the claim tried before a jury. Thus the bill was sought by large commercial interests who saw it as a way to expedite their ability to collect debts and claims against consumers. The intent of the bill in no way was to lower the attorneys’ fees consumers are exposed to.”
These questions deserve answers, I hope that HALT can offer some insight into the issues. As long as small claims courts have fair results, I am not personally affronted by the loss of jury trials in civil matters — litigants deserve expedited justice when their cases are valid, whether they are corporations or individuals. (Carolyn added her own update this evening, noting the importance of Stu’s question and the need for some hard information.)