I especially want to thank Chief Justice Ronald George and the Judicial Council for hosting this conference and for their commitment to equal access to justice. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council – along with the State Bar and the Commission on Access to Justice – California has come along way over the last 10 years. With their leadership, we have focused new attention on the daunting obstacles faced by the extraordinary number of people who appear in court without legal assistance, many of whom face language barriers in addition to not understanding their legal rights and court procedures.

I know that some of you are veterans of self-help services from the days – although they were not that long ago – before we had family law facilitators. I recall as a legal aid lawyer helping to establish self-help clinics outside the courts to assist pro per litigants. Others of you may have been introduced to these programs more recently.

But whether you are a veteran of self-help, or a recent initiate, you are all pioneers in a movement that is critical not only to meeting the daily challenge of pro per litigants in our courts but to satisfying the fundamental principal of access to justice as our legal systems continue to evolve.

Someday I believe we will look back at the years just passed and we will wonder, as we now do about copy machines and stenographic equipment, how the courts ever functioned without self-help services.

As judges, lawyers, and other members of the justice community, I know you believe as I do – and as Governor Schwarzenegger noted in his State of the State address – that access to justice is a bedrock principle of our democracy. Unfortunately, despite your many efforts, we as a society have allowed that foundation to weaken in recent years. As a society we have failed to do all we can to keep up with changes that have profoundly affected our legal system in general, and our courts in particular. These changes include:

-- Major cuts in federal funding for legal services organizations that have forced these organizations to turn away most of the people who seek help, even when they meet strict eligibility requirements;

-- Increasing numbers of people who cannot afford the cost of a lawyer; and

-- Changes in the diversity of the state's population, which is one of our great cultural and economic strengths, but has presented the courts with unique challenges.

Ensuring that we have a viable system for the orderly resolution of disputes that is open to everyone is not just a nice-sounding aspiration. As the Judicial Council's public opinion survey last fall pointed out, respect for the law depends upon public confidence in the integrity of the justice system. Whether disputes are brought to the legal system for resolution or decided in less desirable ways depends in part on whether the courts are accessible to all who face legal problems.

Unfortunately, it has become almost cliché to hear it said that people get the justice they can afford. For example, the Judicial Council's opinion survey reported that more than two-thirds (68%) of the people surveyed feel that low-income people usually receive worse outcomes in court than others.

I am proud to have played a role in adding $5 million to the Equal Access Fund last year through the Uniform Civil Filing Fees bill – which will help fund the self-help partnership programs between the courts and legal services organizations. I am especially pleased that I was able to convince my legislative colleagues, with the support of the Judicial Council, to earmark $2.5 million for self help services this budget year and $5 million each budget year thereafter. I understand that the AOC has already notified courts of the availability of $1.3 million of additional funding for self-help services.

I look forward to the AOC announcing soon the availability of an additional $1.2 million in new funding for use for programs prior to the end of this budget year on June 30th as well as the availability of $5 million commencing July 1, 2006, as called for by the Legislature.

And yet it is also clear to me that we have far to go if we are to respect not just the abstract ideal but the practical reality of equal access to the courts. In response to the reports of the Access to Justice Commission, and the testimony I heard at a joint hearing of the Assembly Judiciary Committee and the Judicial Council that I co-chaired with Chief Justice George last November, I have introduced three bills that I believe will help expand equal access to justice. I am pleased to report that each of these three bills enjoys the support of State Bar President Jim Heiting and Chief Justice Ron George, as well as many other members of the bench and Bar.

Bill #1 – Increasing Self-Help Services Throughout California

The bill that is most directly related to your work is AB 2303, which is designed to help implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Self-represented Litigants to expand the availability of self-help services so that they are available in every county, not only for family law issues but for the wider range of cases on the civil side for which self-represented parties appear in court.

I strongly support the work you have been doing to develop and refine self-help services. I know that the courts have responded to the influx of unrepresented parties with a number of creative measures, including an Internet Web site, videos, publications and trainings.

I believe, however, that court-based self-help centers, supervised by attorneys, are the best way for courts to facilitate the timely and cost-effective processing of cases involving unrepresented parties, to increase access to the courts and improve delivery of justice to the public. I know that these self-help centers have been piloted in a number of counties with very good results. I look forward to building on the lessons you have learned and establishing these self-help centers across the state. My goal is a simple one—there should be a self-help center available in each of the courts in our state. I look forward to working closely with the Judicial Council to identify additional funding in this years budget to make this goal a reality.

Bill #2 –CHARITABLE GIVING FOR LEGAL AID (AB 2301)

I hope I will also have your support for my second bill, which is designed to raise funds for legal services organizations that provide free legal assistance to poor Californians. AB 2301 authorizes the State Bar of California to collect voluntary charitable contributions from lawyers. Roughly a dozen other states already do this.

Unfortunately, California continues to lag far behind other industrial states in total funding of legal services for the poor. The figures are sobering:

• At least 80 percent of the civil legal needs of low-income people in California are not being met.
  
  
• Legal services organizations are currently turning away approximately 75% of all people who meet the strict eligibility standards, for no other reason than that these organizations lack sufficient resources.
  
  
• Total resources for legal services programs in California averaged only a little over $22.00 per poor person in 2003, and in some regions much lower.
  
  
• There is one legal aid attorney for every 8,373 poor people in California.

By contrast, the number of attorneys providing legal services to the general population is approximately one for every 240 people – nearly 35 times higher. In other words, one-half of one percent of California lawyers is available to serve approximately 17 % of the population.

The dramatic increase in the number of parties that appear in court without a lawyer directly followed significant restrictions in federal funding for legal services organizations imposed by Congress in 1995. It is clear that there is a direct connection between declining financial support for legal services and the need for self-help services. In effect, the policies of the federal government have simply shifted the cost of responding to the legal needs of poor people from federally-funded legal services programs to state-funded self help services, and of course also put pressure on other social services programs. By generating financial support for legal services programs from the legal profession, we will help to reduce some of the pressure on the courts to deal with unrepresented parties. Financial assistance from the legal profession will also allow for increased funding for the partnership grants that support self-help centers.

Some states already collect financial contributions from lawyers to support legal services programs. Other states have gone even further by requiring every lawyer to report pro bono service hours and/or financial contributions, as well as mandatory lawyer surcharges to support legal aid programs.

Of course, many California lawyers perform substantial pro bono services and/or make financial contributions in lieu of pro bono.

The lawyers providing such assistance should be commended. However, there is no statewide system in California to coordinate these contributions. The private bar, acting on its own, cannot and should not be called upon to provide full civil representation for California’s poor or to shoulder the full societal cost of funding legal services organizations. Nonetheless, the legal profession should take the lead in the effort to improve the justice system, and the State Bar can play an important role in helping lawyers help others.

Bill #3: Court Interpreters (AB 2302)

My third bill is also related to your work in the self-help field. AB 2302 is designed to ensure that everyone who appears in court has language assistance if needed to help them communicate with the court, and to help the court communicate with them.

As you know, an increasing number of court users – and many of the people who need self-help services -- face an insurmountable barrier to justice because they speak a primary language other than English. The Access Commission estimates that nearly seven million Californians cannot gain access to the courts now without significant language assistance, cannot understand pleadings, forms or other legal documents, cannot communicate with clerks or court staff and cannot understand or participate meaningfully in court proceedings – much less effectively present their cases – without a qualified interpreter.

As the Access to Justice Commission recently pointed out: “Unless every Californian can fully understand and participate in judicial proceedings affecting his or her legal rights, our courts cannot serve their intended purpose and our democracy cannot keep one of its most important promises.”

Of course, inadequate resources to assist litigants with limited English proficiency also affects the court’s ability to function properly, causing delays in proceedings, inappropriate defaults, and faulty interpretation that can ultimately subvert justice. Courts should not be forced to swear in as an interpreter the child of a family involved in a family law matter.

Existing law states that interpreters should be provided in certain cases involving domestic violence, parental rights, and dissolution of marriage involving a protective order. However, compliance with this law depends on federal funding, which is not available. Other states by contrast provide both parties and witnesses with a right to a court-appointed interpreter in all civil matters.

I believe that court interpreters should be available to all Californians who need them, just as they currently are for parties who are deaf or hard of hearing, in order to protect the fair and efficient administration of justice, encourage trust and confidence in the judicial system and promote respect for the rule of law.

Conclusion

Thank you again for the opportunity to join you today. You are truly among the innovators in the struggle for access to justice, and I am proud to support your efforts. I know we are all working toward the day when resources for self-represented litigants are no longer pinched.