Introduction to the Court

The 26th Judicial District in North Carolina encompasses the city of Charlotte and surrounding suburban areas which had a population of roughly 1.5 million in 2005, about a 14 percent increase since 2000 1. Within North Carolina’s uniform court system, the 26 th Judicial District is the largest volume court of general jurisdiction in the state with approximately 300,000 new cases filed each year.

Nature of Challenges Facing the Court

Key judges, critical court personnel, prosecuting and defense attorneys, officials and members of the local bar and other significant individuals indicated a desire to participate in the Partner Court Project because of numerous impacts that self-represented litigants were having on court operations and other matters within the District. Specifically, the application noted that:

…the pro se person creates inefficiencies and confusion in an already over burdened system and outcomes are often poor due to lack of knowledge, tools (forms and instructions), and/or the ability to navigate in an often complex court process.

It appears that pro se parties constitute the vast majority of litigants involved in domestic relations cases within the District. Internal studies have shown that 60% to 65% of pending family law cases have at least one party proceeding in a pro se manner. Domestic violence and child support enforcement cases also have a high percentage of self-represented litigants. The Criminal Administrative Court, handling misdemeanor cases, has a daily docket of between 800 and 1,200 cases – with a substantial portion of these defendants representing themselves. Probate and special proceedings (guardianships, foreclosures, adoptions, etc.) are routinely initiated by self-represented individuals, and the questions that they pose to the Clerk of Court and staff have a tremendous impact on the daily activities of the Clerk’s office. Finally, over 44,000 small claims were filed in the District last year, and the vast majority of parties involved in these matters were not represented by counsel.

To assist pro se litigants, especially those who were pursuing issues that would be handled within the Family Court, the District created a “ Self Serve Center” which offered various types of aid to individuals who were attempting to pursue legal matters on their own. This assistance included forms and instructions, videos, informational clinics, and a list of attorneys offering specific or selected legal services. However, key officials within the District believed that this Center, and other significant programs and services that currently existed, would not entirely resolve a variety of key issues related to pro se matters. Specifically, it was believed that the Partner Court Project could aid the District’s efforts by:

1. Helping to create opportunities for pro se litigants who needed legal assistance to connect with volunteer lawyers, lawyer referral programs, legal service attorneys and private sector attorneys.
   
2. Strengthening the operation of the Self Serve Center, and identifying additional methods of providing appropriate information or assistance to individuals who wished to pursue legal matters on their own.
   
3. Developing educational opportunities, and if appropriate, guidelines, for judges, attorneys and court personnel concerning pro se litigants.

Strategy for Mobilizing a Change Effort

As with all the Partner Courts, North Carolina’s 26 th Judicial District embraced the notion of a steering committee chaired by the court to lead the overall effort. The Steering Team was co-chaired by the presiding judges of both the Superior Court and the District Court and included a family court judge, the District Attorney, the Trial Court Administrator, both the Immediate Past President and the Executive Director of theMecklenburg County Bar, along with a representative of the Volunteer Lawyers Program and the Public Defender. The Steering Team made considerable efforts to assemble a clear picture of existing services available to pro se litigants in the District and to inform themselves regarding innovations nationwide. They developed a clear and compelling statement of the District’s vision regarding self-represented litigants.

Given that vision, the team then identified a set of issues that should be addressed including enhancing the opportunities for pro se litigants to connect with legal representation, strengthening the existing Self-Serve Center, and developing educational opportunities for judges, attorneys, and court personnel regarding pro se litigants.

The Steering Team then commissioned a working team chaired by two judges. This team had four sub-groups focusing respectively on Family Court, Criminal Court, Civil/Small Claims Court and Special Proceedings. Representation on this working team was drawn from all segments of the court and from among consumers of court services. This team met frequently and put considerable effort into defining specific existing resources and problems. A rich array of services already available—from mediation in civil and domestic cases, to landlord/tenant dispute resolution to voluntary lawyer services—were identified.

Accomplishments

The effort accomplished a number of improvements in practice related to pro se litigants. A few included:

• enhancing pre-trial services for pro se litigants by creating a “lawyer for the day” volunteer program;
• enhancing services related to the filing of documents by securing $100,000 in grants to allow for web based and interactive software to create and properly file various forms; and
• encouraging more uniformity in the conduct of pro se hearings by developing a protocol to be used by judges conducting hearings in domestic cases involving pro se litigants—and providing a seminar for judges on the new protocol.

As a result of this initiative, it appears that individuals who are able to represent themselves will have a better understanding of pertinent rules, procedures, and other types of necessary information, will be more likely to properly complete and file actions and forms, and will be better able to receive and understand answers to their questions. For those individuals who require various levels or types of legal assistance, they will now be more likely to appreciate their options and access the assistance they need.

Lessons

An important lesson from this experience is that it is extremely important and helpful to create an appropriate dialogue among judges, court staff, the County Bar Association, local attorneys and other interested parties around pro se matters. Once a common vision for this area was established, it was much more possible to understand existing resources and to define areas in need of improvement.

Many of the participants in the process indicated that the project helped to advance their understanding of existing resources, system issues, and the perspectives of other agencies or individuals. It also helped to identify and clarify some of the principal barriers faced by self-represented litigants. Once these issues were identified, the collaborative work teams took steps to address issues and improve many areas of operation.

Perhaps most importantly, the development of a common vision and understanding can empower such a team to significantly impact future developments. The identification of existing services and activities helped stimulate important discussions and actions regarding the coordination of efforts, sharing of information, and training. The collaboration and assistance provided during this project by officials with the Mecklenburg County Bar, local attorneys, courthouse staff, judges, and others indicates that the activities underway will continue to develop and expand, and that long term involvement by these important individuals will continue.

For more information about the efforts of 26 th Judicial District Court in North Carolina regarding pro se litigants, contact Todd Nuccio, Trial Court Administrator, 832 East Fourth Street, Suite 4420, Charlotte, NC 28202, Phone (704) 347-7805  Fax (704) 417-1975, tcnuccio@vnet.net .

1 U.S. Census Bureau, State and Metropolitan Area Data Book, 2006, http://www.census.gov/compendia/smadb/CTables.pdf