The Gazette 1984

GAZETTE

MARCH 1984

Legal Services in the USA*

by Geoffrey Bindman, Solicitor, London

Do-it-Yourself Law Centre I N Los Angeles, the Do-it-Yourself Law Centre is a private firm operated by a partnership of lawyers. It has so far established three offices and has attracted a substantial number of clients by television advertising. After an initial diagnostic interview with the lawyer, the client whose problem is in a well-defined area, such as divorce, wills, private or simple litigation will be invited to buy a package which contains all the necessary forms and precedents, with simple instructions for completing them. Included in the price of the package ($300 for a divorce) is the right to attend, free of charge, a weekly 'workshop', held in the evening, at which the client can report on progress and obtain further advice and guidance from the lawyer. A range of layman's guides to the law is also offered for sale by the firm. If at any stage things start to go wrong, or the case turns out mere complicated than expected and beyond the client's capacity to cope with on his own, the firm will take it over just like an ordinary lawyer — though the firm maintains that its fees are still less than those of traditional firms. The firm claims that its worth is borne out by the large number of clients it attracts, and by attempts by other lawyers to copy its system. The packaged materials of the Do-it-Yourself Law Centre are copyright, but the firm is in the process of developing a licensing or franchising scheme which will enable other lawyers to use its material in return for fees or commission. Profits It is not clear how far such firms make profits from the do-it-yQurself part of their business. Apart from those cases in which the client gives up part of the way through and hands over the whole job to the firm, it appears that a number of clients who think they may be able to handle their own cases are persuaded at the outset that they would be unwise to do so. In this way, the promise of'do- it-yourself attracts work which the firm might not otherwise come by. This certainly includes some substantial personal injury cases which are extremely lucrative and are competed for fiercely by California lawyers. Nevertheless, for those who can cope, likely to be among the more educated but not necessarily so, the system seems to be a valuable resource. Certainly, apart from the risk of its being used unfairly to attract business by raising false hopes of saving expense, it is hard to see any harm in it, and why should the public not have the option of handling their own cases with assistance if they want it? Bristol 'Self-help' Scheme It may not be remembered by many that an attempt by a firm of English solicitors to advertise a scheme to help

clients to handle their own cases has met fierce opposition from The Law Society. A Bristol firm has been operating a 'self-help' legal service since March 1979. One evening a week, the firm provides clients with space in which to work, and access to stationery, forms and literature, for a small fee, together with assistance where necessary from a solicitor on duty throughout the session. Unless the service can be advertised, however, few people are likely to hear about it, and the firm sought a waiver of the restriction on advertising in the Solicitors' Practice Rules. The Law Society refused even a limited, experimental, monitored waiver, taking the view that such a waiver would not be in the public interest. The firm sought to challenge the refusal of a waiver by complaining under the European Human Rights Convention that the restriction violated the right of freedom of expression conferred by Art 10 of the convention and that the UK Government was in breach of Art 13 by failing to provide an effective remedy for such a violation. Un f o r t una t e l y, the Eu r ope an Human Rights Commission declared the application inadmissible on the ground that the complainant had failed to test whether in fact there was a remedy under English law. The substan- tive arguments on the validity of advertising restrictions were not decided, even though there seems no practical possibility of having the Solicitors' Practice Rules declared invalid by an English court. In order to bring the substantive issue before the Commission, an action must be brought here merely to establish that it must fail, and the costs of its failure must be borne by the applicants unless The Law Society is prepared to pay them, or at least to waive its own costs if it defends the proceedings successfully. The 'self-help' idea is clearly a valuable one which it is in the public interest at least to test fully. If the Law Society is not prepared to grant a waiver, it should at least be prepared to facilitate the determination of the validity of its refusal under the Convention. Legal Aid The developments which have so far been described do not cater for the very poor; they depend on the ability of the client to meet the cost of the services, however much this may be reduced to the minimum. It would be wrong to suppose, however, that the publicly-funded sector is of no account. Since the systematic provision of federal funds for legal aid began under President Kennedy's Poverty Program, the budget (excluding criminal defence) rose in 1980 to $325 million, only about one quarter of the cost of civil legal aid in Britain in proportion to the population but hardly insignificant. Legal aid in the USA is now administered by a federal agency, the Legal Services Corporation. Like its British counterpart, the Reagan Government is cutting back social services and the legal services budget has been 55