63 / 322
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