unbundling legal services in 2014 Recommendations for the Courts By Forrest Mosten

n my 2001 article in this prestigious jour- nal,1 I set forth the fundamental concepts Iof unbundling (limited-scope representa- tion) and the reasons why this method of rendering legal services benefits litigants, the practicing bar, and the courts. Over the past 12 years, to my great per- sonal satisfaction, unbundling has become institutionalized within the legal land- scape. In the current legal and economic environments, the availability of unbun- dled legal services is more important than ever. Unbundling enables who serve those of modest means to expand their outreach to a broader base of poten- tial clients, providing greater access to affordable legal services across the country. The purpose of this updated article is to give a brief overview of these develop- ments and showcase the leadership of judges and court staff in making unbun- dling a reality in so many and to recommend ways to further expand unbundling’s contribution to increased legal access.

What Is Unbundling and How Does It Work? Unbundling is not a new concept. Essen- consultation or throughout the case as hours. The client is in charge of deter- tially, unbundling is an agreement between determined by the client with input mining the scope of the job and who the client and the to limit the from the lawyer. The lawyer and client will do the work: the lawyer, the client, scope of services that the lawyer renders. collaborate in helping the client decide or a negotiated collaborative effort There are numerous replicable models of if and when further consultations may between the two. lawyers successfully unbundling their ser- be needed. ■■ Drafting: Lawyers can ghostwrite let- vices to increase legal access. ■■ Research: Based on the lawyer’s ters or court pleadings for the client to Examples of unbundling include the advice, if the client wants legal transmit or review and comment on following: research, a personal or telephonic/web documents the client has prepared, or unbundled service provides this legal be engaged only to send a letter on ■■ Advice: If a client wants advice only, information. Research may take as lit- behalf of the client on law firm advice can be purchased at an initial tle as 15 minutes or as much as 10 letterhead.

10 The Judges’ Journal • Vol. 53 No. 1 Published in The Judges' Journal, Volume 53, Number 1, Winter 2014. © 2014 by the . Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. ■■ Negotiation: The lawyer can teach the 2013 ABA Resolution Supporting of self-representing litigants, major reduc- client how to negotiate with his or her Unbundling tions in court budgets, the increased spouse or the spouse’s lawyer directly, The watershed moment in the acceptance demand for legal access including calls for in preparation for mediation or a set- of unbundling is Resolution No. 108, a “Civil Gideon,”5 and the proliferation tlement meeting. Or the lawyer can be adopted by the ABA House of Delegates of proven replicable unbundling models engaged to conduct negotiations on on February 11, 2013. The key points of that motivate judges to adapt unbundling behalf of the client. this resolution follow: to their courts. ■■ Court appearances: If a client desires, A review of the explosion of unbun- an unbundled lawyer can convert to RESOLVED, That the American Bar dling action on the state level full representation for court appear- Association encourages practitioners, demonstrates the breadth of unbundling’s ances, hearings, and mediation. At the when appropriate, to consider limit- overall acceptance. The ABA Standing other end of the spectrum, lawyers can ing the scope of their representation, Committee on the Delivery of Legal Ser- provide collaborative-law representa- including the unbundling of legal ser- vices, in its online Pro Se/Unbundling tion in which the lawyer provides all vices as a means of increasing access Resource Center,6 offers information services related to the case, except rep- to legal services. about unbundling (including articles, resentation in court, from which the reports, cases, court rules, and ethics opin- lawyer would be disqualified under the FURTHER RESOLVED, That the ions) on a state-by-state basis. terms of a collaborative law American Bar Association encour- The ABA Report (submitted with its agreement. ages and supports the efforts of 2013 unbundling resolution) specifically national, state, tribal, local and ter- referenced the efforts of state courts, high- A lawyer may be engaged for a single ritorial bar associations, the lighting the work in Massachusetts, Iowa, issue of spousal support only, and the cli- judiciary and court administrations, Ohio, California, and Maine.7 Florida and ent will either represent himself and/or and CLE providers to take measures Colorado are also early pioneering states engage another representative to handle to assure that practitioners who in this field.8 all other issues. In the same way, a lawyer limit the scope of their representa- Courts should be aware of the different might represent a client in a single hear- tion do so with full understanding ways that states handle key unbundling ing on temporary child custody, but the and recognition of their profes- issues. For example, some states require client will represent herself at subsequent sional obligations. disclosure of attorney involvement in hearings on child custody or at trial on all ghostwriting court pleadings (e.g., Colo- issues. Lawyer and client are in charge of FURTHER RESOLVED, That the rado, Florida, Nebraska), while California determining the scope of representation American Bar Association encour- expressly provides for confidentiality of and unbundling; in friendly jurisdictions, ages and supports the efforts of lawyer ghostwriting. the court and other party are required to national, state, tribal, local and ter- honor that lawyer-client decision. ritorial bar associations, the The limitation of legal services based judiciary and court administrations, Forrest (Woody) on informed consent and a written agree- and those providing legal services Mosten is interna- ment is permitted in every state and in to increase public awareness of the tionally recognized many Western countries.2 “Second opin- availability of limited scope repre- as the “Father of ions” are classic unbundled services. Every sentation as an option to help meet Unbundling” for his time a lawyer writes a single letter, instead the legal needs of the public.4 pioneering work in of three possible letters, or makes several limited-scope and phone calls, the services are limited and As the House of Delegates is the poli- discrete-task ser- thus unbundled. cymaking body for the ABA (the largest vices to provide professional membership group in the affordable and understandable legal ser- Overview of Unbundling world), its endorsement and accompany- vices to families. He is a certified family Developments ing report should make local efforts easier law specialist, collaborative lawyer, and In 2001, the concept of unbundling was in the years to come. mediator in Los Angeles for which unbun- barely a decade in existence. While a few dling and other nonlitigation activities are states had pioneering programs and there State Court Rules, Ethical Opinions, the foundation of his family law practice. had been one national conference on the Judicial Cases, and Policy Reports He is also an adjunct professor of law at issue (October 12–14, 2000, in Balti- Across the country, most states and their the UCLA School of Law. He can be more3), unbundling was still in its infancy. court systems have embraced unbundling reached at http://www.mosten The following are only the highlights of during the past decade for a number of mediation.com. activity in the past several years: reasons, which include increased numbers

Winter 2014 • The Judges’ Journal 11 Published in The Judges' Journal, Volume 53, Number 1, Winter 2014. © 2014 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Recognition of Replicable Unbundling Legal Scholarship in Unbundling in the step-by-step delivery of unbundled Models In the past decade, many published aca- services. As an illustration only, in Octo- Since 1995, the ABA has recognized indi- demic articles have discussed and studied ber 2013, I was a student in a sold-out viduals and organizations that have the problems of unrepresented litigants and unbundling seminar at the Los Angeles demonstrated replicable models of unbun- analyzed the benefits and risks of various Public Law Library taught by legal services dling through its Louis M. Brown Legal unbundling models. These articles can be legend Toby Rothschild and employment Access Award.9 These models are profiled surveyed at http://www.americanbar.org/ and legal malpractice litigator Wendy and serve as working models for others inter- groups/delivery_legal_services/resources/ Chang. Courts, nonprofits, and bar asso- ested in unbundling. Two of the court models pro_se_unbundling_resource_center/articles. ciations are sponsoring similar training honored by this prestigious award are: html. Recent key articles on unbundling programs throughout the country. and self-represented litigants published 2011: Pinellas County Clerk of the since the survey was updated in November Growth of Unbundling Circuit Court Legal Self Help Center. 2011 include those by D. James Greiner in the Courts The Pinellas County Clerk of the and Molly Jennings of Harvard Univer- When I began my writing and teaching of Circuit Court Legal Self Help Center sity,11 Kristen Blankley of the University of unbundling, I focused on the role of the was established in October 2007 to Nebraska,12 and Julie Macfarlane of the lawyer in helping pro se litigants outside University of Windsor.13 of court. My main concern was to provide people with a third choice beyond engag- Malpractice Insurance Carriers’ ing a full-service lawyer or having no legal Support for Unbundling help at all. Judicial Due to client satisfaction and the small The goal was to provide limited-scope number of malpractice claims against law- services for clients that would help them leadership and yers who unbundle,14 malpractice carriers resolve their problems without adding to increasingly have promoted the use of the court workload. Because the lawyer is support have unbundled services by their policy hold- doing only part of the necessary work, lim- ers and provide training to their policy ited-scope clients are generally not institutionalized holders to increase competent use of this required to pay the large up-front deposit form of practice. Starting in 1997, the that prevents, or at least discourages, unbundling Oregon State Bar’s malpractice program many people from hiring a lawyer. Also, has encouraged lawyers to unbundle. because the overall lawyer bill is less, cli- in a variety of Attorney Protective, a malpractice carrier, ents with limited incomes especially has just published an article, “Delivering benefit from the limited help that lawyers contexts and Competent and Ethical Unbundling Ser- provide. vices,” and the Indiana State Bar included My initial model called for lawyer jurisdictions. an insurance representative in its unbun- coaching to prepare litigants to represent dling program shown throughout the state themselves in court by helping them to in 2005. Lawyers Mutual Insurance Com- organize their documentary evidence (to provide affordable legal services to the pany, which insures more California eliminate fishing for receipts piled in shoe citizens of Pinellas County, Florida, and lawyers than any other legal malpractice boxes while the judge waits), prepare more to assist them with filing small claims, insurance carrier, has been supporting persuasive written court pleadings, and tenant evictions, and family cases. unbundling for many years and has pro- arrange for witnesses to support their case. vided lawyer education including experts However, due to the judicial disdain 1997: Superior Court of Arizona in on and access to justice. for so-called special appearances and hos- Maricopa County Self-Service Center. tility toward perceived efforts by lawyers The Self-Service Center is the result of a Professional Training in Unbundling to limit their own responsibilities toward progressive series of steps (court forms, a When I served on the ABA Interest on clients without informed consent, my ini- consumer service center, unbundling Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Com- tial model did not include as a attorney list) that the court system took mission in 1997–98, some legal services limited-scope role that lawyers personally to meet the legal needs of those who could lawyers and organizations resisted the appear in court for unbundling clients. not afford full and traditional legal repre- expansion of limited-scope legal coach- This added feature of unbundling should sentation. This model represents ing. Due to budget cuts and to more be credited to courageous judges in many acceptance of unbundling and of the con- exposure to quality limited-scope help, jurisdictions. Having learned about the sumer approach to expansion of legal there has been a movement to train both concept of unbundling, these bench offi- access at their core.10 public interest and private practitioners cers innovatively applied unbundling

12 The Judges’ Journal • Vol. 53 No. 1 Published in The Judges' Journal, Volume 53, Number 1, Winter 2014. © 2014 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. thinking to recruit lawyers to represent reforms passed the legislature unanimously of unbundling led to a groundbreaking litigants in a single hearing (“vertical and all with heavy bipartisan support. “Report of the Unbundled Legal Services unbundling”) or for a single issue through- Chief Justice Carson’s “Justice 2020 Ini- Monitoring Committee”21 authored by a out the litigation (“horizontal tiative” (we are now only six years away) consortium of judicial officers, private unbundling”). In an effort to provide some laid out an unbundling-friendly legal practitioners, and legal services lawyers. courtroom advocacy representation where environment. The 2013 Informal Domes- This report along with Florida’s pioneer- there had been none, these forward-think- tic Relations Trial in Deschutes County, ing court rules and ethical opinions have ing judges improved the efficiency of their Oregon, in which unbundled lawyers help led to increased use of limited-scope ser- courtrooms and at the same time helped litigants prepare for and try their cases, vices, particularly ghostwriting of legal preserve the rights of the otherwise unrep- embodies a low-cost, efficient alternative documents by lawyers for pro se resented litigants. to the traditional court processes.17 litigants. The key to this breakthrough was judi- 3. Lord Harry Woolf, Lord Chief Jus- 6. Justice Laurie Zelon, California cial support for permitting the limited tice of England and Wales Court of Appeals scope lawyer to easily withdraw as counsel Lord Woolf was the keynote speaker at As chair of a California State Bar Task of record after the limited job was done. the 1994 Legal Action Group Conference Force in 2001, Justice Zelon’s efforts For example, if a lawyer made a limited- in London, England, titled “Shaping the resulted in the groundbreaking Unbun- scope appearance for an emergency Future: New Directions for Legal Ser- dling Report that led to promulgation of hearing on restraining orders, the lawyer vices,” and personally endorsed court rules and standard court forms could withdraw once the judge made unbundling in his follow up report.18 Lord endorsing unbundling. Justice Zelon led orders in that hearing. Woolf’s commitment to legal access and the efforts to add subsection (c) to ABA his recognition of the partnership between Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2, Judicial Contributions to bench and bar have propelled the use of which legitimized unbundling: Unbundling innovative models of unbundling and Even though the genesis of unbundling came encouraged other judges to support (c) A lawyer may limit the scope of from the private sector, judicial leadership unbundling in their courtrooms. the representation if the limitation and support have institutionalized unbun- 4. Chief Justice Ronald M. George, is reasonable under the circum- dling in a variety of contexts and jurisdictions. California Supreme Court, and Chief stances and the client gives Here are just a few of the judges to whom Justice John T. Broderick, New Hamp- informed consent. society owes a debt of gratitude. shire Supreme Court These two esteemed jurists coauthored an As unbundling pioneer M. Sue Talia, 1. Judge Rebecca Albrecht, Maricopa op-ed piece in the New York Times on Jan- 2008 recipient of the ABA Louis M. Superior Court, Phoenix, Arizona uary 1, 2010, that constituted a crucial Brown Award for Legal Access, stated, Judge Albrecht used inspiring leadership judicial endorsement of unbundling.19 “Section 1.2(c) is the gold standard of and humility to involve other key people The following excerpt was adopted by the unbundling.” As recently as 2012, Justice and institutions in the Arizona legal com- 2013 ABA Report passed with its unbun- Zelon chaired the ABA Access to Justice munity to make unbundling a reality. She dling resolution: Expansion Project, which has provided supported a major ABA study on unrep- grants for innovative and replicable proj- resented litigants in her court.15 The court While supporting the goal of a right ects in unbundling and other models of maintained a list of unbundled lawyers in to counsel in some civil cases, the legal access. the Phoenix area that were trained to offer Chief Justices wrote that it is essen- 7. Judge James Williams, Nova Sco- limited-scope services—Judge Albrecht tial to close the “justice gap” and tia Supreme Court (Family Div.), forged an alliance with the local bar asso- that “unbundling” is one of the Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada ciation to make this happen.16 tools to do so. They indicated that As conference organizer of the Canadian 2. Justice Wallace Carson, Chief Jus- lawyers who provide limited scope Federation of Law Societies (previously tice, Oregon Supreme Court representation are being responsive host chair of World Congress on Family In the late 1990s, Chief Justice Carson to new realities.20 Law and Children’s Rights), Judge Wil- partnered with the Oregon Task Force on liams included unbundling in its 2000 Family Law, which was chaired by family Both of these judges have also worked National Conference in St. Johns, New- law lawyer and legal reformer William J. for unbundling reforms and acceptance foundland. Judge Williams has promoted Howe III, to revolutionize the Oregon in their respective states and throughout unbundled services and training in his family law system. The Oregon court sys- the country. court and throughout Canada. tem, Oregon State Bar, and both houses 5. Judge Judith L. Kreeger, Miami, 8. Ventura California Superior Court: of the legislature worked together to Florida Judge Sheila Gonzalez, Judge John R. accomplish these reforms. Indeed, most Judge Kreeger’s long and sustained support Smiley, Judge Charles W. Campbell, and

Winter 2014 • The Judges’ Journal 13 Published in The Judges' Journal, Volume 53, Number 1, Winter 2014. © 2014 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Michael Plant, Court Executive be enacted. All court rules should pass offered limited-scope representation In addition to founding the court’s Ven- an unbundling impact test. as an option prior to commencing tura Self Help Legal Access Center,22 the 10. Courts should develop user-friendly litigation. court has institutionalized a letter to all court forms to facilitate lawyers mak- 17. Courts should establish panels for litigants encouraging the use of unbundled ing and withdrawing from attorneys willing to offer limited- services and has led the movement for limited-scope appearances.25 scope representation based on quality limited-scope attorney representation for 11. Courts should publish and make standards. Every attorney on that list hearings involving low-income litigants. prominently available consumer- should be required to offer pro bono friendly brochures, video loops, and limited-scope services to the poor and Recommendations for Courts to other material describing the benefits underserved populations at a level Increase Use of Unbundling and risks of unbundling. determined by each court. The following recommendations devel- 12. Lawyers who represent clients via lim- 18. Courts should monitor the effects of oped in 2000 remain applicable today:23 ited-scope representation should unbundling initiatives and assess their receive priority in scheduling and effectiveness. 1. Courts should offer information and calling their limited-scope matters. services to pro se litigants. Courts Conclusion should provide self-represented liti- The impact of unbundling on the provi- gants with information (including sion of legal services has increased information to indicate when the Courts have exponentially over the past 10 years. court can order one party to pay liti- Courts have played a leadership role, not gation expenses and attorney’s fees). played a just within the courthouse, but also in 2. Courts should study the needs and spurring the private sector into action. composition of the self-represented leadership role, The combined efforts of jurists, practitio- litigants they serve and design ser- ners, legislators, academic scholars, and vices to effectively meet those needs. not just within the ancillary private sector efforts have legiti- 3. Courts should train judges and staff mized unbundling and rendered it a firmly to assist pro se litigants. courthouse, but established way of meeting the needs of 4. Courts should allocate increased underserved litigants. The evolution of resources to assist self-represented also in spurring unbundling continues, and I hope the litigants. above recommendations will be consid- 5. Courts should establish guidelines the private sector ered in court policy, programs, and prohibiting bias in the courts against training in the years ahead. n self-represented litigants. into action. My deep appreciation to the following col- The following additional recommenda- leagues and friends who have generously tions should be considered by courts in 13. Courts should fund and promote man- reviewed this article and provided invaluable every : datory education for litigants that will ideas: Will Hornsby, longtime staff counsel include how to use unbundling ser- of ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery 6. Courts should proactively encourage vices offered inside and outside the of Legal Services; Kristen Blankley, assistant the use of limited-scope representa- courthouse. professor, University of Nebraska School of tion in a variety of ways, including a 14. Courts should encourage mediators Law; and my co-instructor at UCLA School letter to litigants at the commence- within their jurisdiction to recom- of Law, Elizabeth Potter Scully. Again, my ment of a court action.24 mend unbundled legal assistance to love and gratitude for the help of my wife and 7. In addition to training current judges parties as part of their customary life partner, Dr. Jody Mosten. Jody was and court staff, training in unbun- mediation protocol. responsible for the brilliant visual demonstra- dling should be highly considered for 15. Courts should partner with local bar tion of the bundle (popsicle sticks for the seven judicial appointments and court staff associations to offer unbundling train- legal services and yarn to hold or untie the hiring. ing and education to lawyers within bundle) as well as a chef hat and unbundling 8. Court personnel (including judges their jurisdiction. apron to demonstrate services à la carte. In and clerks) should be trained to help 16. In considering fee and cost requests, the “early days,” I used the sticks and cook- court users identify and take advan- judges should favor parties who have ing gear as props in my presentations in tage of unbundling resources in the opted for limited-scope representation Australia and England when I “rolled out” community. and should disfavor parties who do the concept of unbundling in legal access and 9. Unbundling-friendly court rules should not demonstrate that their lawyers family law conferences.

14 The Judges’ Journal • Vol. 53 No. 1 Published in The Judges' Journal, Volume 53, Number 1, Winter 2014. © 2014 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Endnotes Super. App. Div. 2003) (in which the New Jersey 1. Forrest S. Mosten, Unbundling Legal Ser- court immunized a lawyer from malpractice expo- vices: Servicing Clients Within Their Ability to sure for work outside the written limited-scope Pay, Judges’ J., Winter 2001. agreement in a major family law action). 2. See ABA Model Rule 1.2(c). 15. See description, supra note 9, of Maricopa’s 3. For details of speakers and materials, see innovations leading to receipt of the 1997 ABA http://www.unbundledlaw.org/old/index.htm. See Louis M. Brown Legal Access Award. also 40 Fam. Ct. Rev. (Jan. 2002) (this special 16. See Forrest S. Mosten, Complete Guide issue was devoted to papers from that conference, to Mediation 376–79 (ABA 1997). organized by Maryland Legal Services). 17. See Oregon Eleventh Judicial District, 4. ABA Res. No. 108, at 44 (2013), available Circuit Court, Deschutes County, 2013 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/ Local Supplementary Rules, Revised and administrative/delivery_legal_services/ls_del_ Effective: May 29, 2013, Rules 7:045–8:105 unbundling_resolution_108.authcheckdam.pdf (2013), http://courts.oregon.gov/Deschutes. [hereinafter Unbundling Resolution 108]. 18. Right Honourable the Lord Woolf, 5. See Robert W. Sweet, Civil “Gideon” and Access to Justice: Interim Report to the Lord Confidence in a Just Society, 17 Yale L. & Pol’y Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in Rev. 503. England and Wales 129–35 (1995). 6. Resources, Standing Comm. on the Deliv- 19. John T. Broderick Jr. & Ronald M. George, ery of Legal Servs., Am. Bar Ass’n (Dec. 14, Op-ed, A Nation of Do-It-Yourself Lawyers, N.Y. 2011), http://www.americanbar.org/groups/ Times, Jan. 1, 2010. delivery_legal_services/resources.html. 20. Unbundling Resolution 108, supra note 4, 7. Unbundling Resolution 108, supra note 4, at 47. at 47–48. The report finds: “Over the past decade, 21. Merrie-Roxie Crowell et al., Report of several states have examined aspects of self-rep- the Unbundled Legal Services Monitoring resentation and concluded that limited scope Committee (Mar. 3, 2005), http://www.floridabar. representation is a model of delivering legal ser- org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/0/B591E315F65F20F vices that is responsive to problems that arise with C85256FE1007766E3/$FILE/SpecialUnbun self-represented litigants.” LegalServMonitorRpt..pdf?OpenElement. 8. See Mosten, supra note 1, at 32–33, 96–100. 22. Tina Rasnow, former director of this Access 9. Louis M. Brown Award for Legal Access, Center, was honored in 2008 for her efforts with Standing Comm. on the Delivery of Legal the ABA Lawyer as Problem Solver Award. See Servs., Am. Bar Ass’n (Jan. 23, 2013), http:// Tina L. Rasnow, Traveling Justice: Providing Court www.americanbar.org/groups/delivery_legal_ Based Pro Se Assistance to Limited Access Commu- services/initiatives_awards/louis_m_brown_ nities, 29 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1281 (2001). award_for_legal_access.html. 23. Changing the Face of Legal Practice; “Unbun- 10. Self-Service Center, Judicial Branch of dled” Legal Services, UnbundledLaw.org, http:// Ariz.: Maricopa Cnty. (2012), http://www. www.unbundledlaw.org. See also Richard Zorza, superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/superiorcourt/ Some First Thoughts on Court Simplification: self-servicecenter. The Key to Civil Access and Justice Transforma- 11. D. James Greiner & Molly M. Jennings, The tion 61 Drake Law Review 845 (2013). Evolution of Unbundling in Litigation: Three Case 24. Ventura County’s use of a letter to all litigants Studies and Literature Review, 89 Denver U. L. from the presiding judge promoting unbundling Rev. 825 (2012). (and other ADR options) should be standard prac- 12. Kristen M. Blankley, Adding by Subtracting: tice in all jurisdictions. The Los Angeles Superior How Limited Scope Agreements for Dispute Resolu- Court sends out a similar letter with support of tion Representation Can Increase Access to Attorney Collaborative Law, another limited scope model. Services, 28 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 3 (2013). See http://www.collaborativepractice.com. 13. Julie Macfarlane, National (Canada) Self- 25. See insert of California Court Form FL-190. Represented Litigants Final Report: Identifying and Meeting Needs of Self-Represented Litigants, Nat’l Self-Represented Litigants Project (2013), http://www.representing-yourself.com. 14. See Lerner v. Laufer, 819 A.2d 471, 482 (N.J.

Winter 2014 • The Judges’ Journal 15 Published in The Judges' Journal, Volume 53, Number 1, Winter 2014. © 2014 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.