Access Brief: Self-Help Services
Overview and Benefits of Self-Help Services
Access Brief 1
November 2012
This Brief was produced by the Center on
Court Access to Justice for All
(www.ncsc.org/atj), an initiative of the
National Center for State Courts (NCSC).
The Center offers resources and technical
assistance to help judges and courts
advance access to justice, especially for
poor and low-income individuals. It works
closely with the Conference of Chief
Justices, the Conference of State Court
Administrators and other national court
organizations to implement access-to-
justice solutions. The Center is supported
by the Public Welfare Foundation (PWF).
About the Authors &
Reviewers
The Brief was prepared by Deborah
Saunders, NCSC Senior Knowledge and
Information Services Analyst, Richard
Zorza of Zorza Associates, and Pamela
Casey, NCSC Principal Court Research
Consultant. The authors thank the careful
review and comments offered by Krista
Hess, Manager, Court Services Center,
Connecticut Superior Court Operations;
Stacey Marz, Director, Family Law Self-
Help Center, Alaska Court System and
Pamela Cardullo Ortiz, Executive Director,
Maryland Access to Justice Commission.
Points of view or opinions expressed in
the Brief are those of the authors and do
not represent the official position of the
NCSC or PWF.
The core idea of self-help services is simple: Give litigants
information and tools to help them understand how to start a
case, move it forward, present the facts
The Core Concept:
to the decision maker, and obtain the
benefit of, or comply with, the court’s Informational
order. Most states now provide such Services to Assist
services in at least some form and in at Litigants in
Navigating the Court
least some locations. The NCSC provides
a state by state list of self-
help/information resources and centers, and the ABA and Self
Represented Litigation Network (SRLN) also offer resources.1
As described in more detail below, self-help services can be
provided through one on one contact, informational materials,
forms, online turbo-tax-like question and answer systems,
internet-based tools, and clinics. They can include provision of
information about procedural and substantive law, information
about the completion of forms, and general information about
what the court needs to hear to render the best decision. Self-
help services, available to all and offered in the form of
information rather than advocacy for one side, are consistent with
the neutral mission of the court and help ensure meaningful
access to justice for all.2
Experience and research in many states confirm the benefits of a
well run delivery system for self-help services.3 First and foremost,
litigants have access to legal information and assistance that
makes the promise of “justice for all” more meaningful. Judges
and court staff can do their jobs more effectively and efficiently
when they are not bogged down with improperly prepared filings
and unprepared litigants, resulting in enhanced caseflow as well.4
Court clerks can avoid some of the ethical quandaries that may
Access Brief 1 / Page 1
 Access Brief: Self-Help Services
arise in trying to adequately assist self-
represented litigants. Private attorneys can
more easily represent their own clients when
the opposing self represented litigant has
necessary information and assistance, and
private attorneys may find a new source of
business in providing limited scope
representation to this type of client.
Well-organized self-help services reinforce
rather than undercut the traditional lawyer-
client service model. Legal aid attorneys can
focus their highly limited resources on those
individuals who need more in-depth
representation, knowing that the self-
represented litigant will find necessary
assistance from the court. 5 A well run delivery
system makes more effective use of attorneys,
law students, college students, and other
volunteers who are interested in public service
opportunities.6 And finally, broad public trust
and confidence in the justice system is
enhanced by easily accessible self help
services.7
The importance of state court
leadership and support for self-help
services cannot be underestimated.
The Conference of Chief Justices and the
Conference of State Court Administrators urge
state court leaders to “take a leadership role in
their respective jurisdictions to encourage the
expansion of successful pro se assistance
programs, to identify and develop programs to
address unmet needs, and to coordinate the
delivery of program services effectively and
efficiently” and “to support the establishment
of court rules and policies that encourage the
participation of judges, court staff, legal
services agencies, state and local bar
associations, and community organizations in
the implementation and operation of assistance
programs for self-represented litigants.”8 Such
leadership is fostered by including self-help
program leaders on both state and local court
management teams, helping to ensure that the
needs of self-represented litigants are
considered in all areas of court management
decisions.9
Delivery Models: A Wide Range of
Tools, Resources and Help
Self-help services can be delivered through a
variety of different models: a desk or office in
the courthouse, state or local online or
telephone services provided remotely,
supervised volunteer college students, public
library access to legal information, court
website access to information in English and
other languages, FAQs, videos, and online
forms. Providing assistance to self represented
litigants often involves a combination of
services depending on local needs, funding, and
support. Many of the delivery models involve
partnerships between the court and an external
group, such as legal aid, public or law libraries,
or the bar.
The cost of self-help programs can vary
considerably depending on the model, and a
wide range of resources and tools are available
to assist courts in deciding which models are
most appropriate and cost effective for their
particular situations.10 Many programs can be
achieved with limited resources, and can even
result in cost savings for courts and litigants.11
Judging by the proliferation of self-help services
available in courts across the states, they enjoy
broad support across the court community.12
Relying on the experiences of those working in
Access Brief 1 / Page 2
 Access Brief: Self-Help Services
the area, opposition, if it occurs at all, usually
dissipates with knowledge and practice, and
practitioners with experience are available to
discuss any concerns with those just getting
started.13
As noted, self-help services are wide-ranging. A
few are described briefly below with some
examples from localities that have implemented
the approach. The examples are only for
illustration purposes; they are not
comprehensive. For some types of self-help
services, many states have similar efforts
underway.
Self-Help Websites
A well-designed website can go a long way in
making access to legal information and
assistance a reality. Making it clear what
services can and cannot be offered is an
important first step to assist the self-
represented litigant. Increasingly, courts are
providing multi-language information, online
forms, or document assembly programs on
their websites, often in partnership with legal
aid programs and the bar. It is important that
electronic resources be ADA compliant and
available for self-represented parties who may
have visual, auditory or other physical
limitations and cannot benefit from traditional
electronic resources.
Examples:
 Connecticut’s website provides self-help
web pages in two languages, a glossary of
commonly used legal terms and FAQ’s. The
forms section of the website includes
grouped civil and family forms by case type
and subject matter, providing self-
represented parties with a comprehensive
list of all the forms they need to file or
respond to a particular civil or family case. 14
 Maryland’s Access to Justice Commission
provides guidance to courts and legal
services in creating accessible websites (and
facilities) and in proactively adopting
inclusive practices. 15 The Commission also
provides a technical assistance document
on how to create accessible online
documents.16
 South Carolina’s self-help website begins
with an explanation of what court staff can
and cannot do and then provides a variety
of delivery formats including FAQs, sample
divorce packets, self help videos on a
variety of topics, online forms, online legal
research, and a link to the Bar Foundation’s
listing of legal clinics.17
 Utah has an online self-help center that
goes a step further with the Online Court
Assistance Program (OCAP) that provides
assistance with document preparation.18
Courthouse Desk or Office
This can be as simple as a staff or volunteer who
greets court users and directs them to
appropriate services and provides basic
information. A more comprehensive self-help
program involving a staff attorney and trained
volunteers or staff can provide more in-depth
resources in person, in printed format, or
online. Review of completed forms and
referrals to various outside service agencies for
additional assistance, ideally based on a
diagnostic protocol, can be a part of this model.
More sophisticated programs may develop
neutral ways of providing information to each
litigant on what must next be done based on
the specifics of the case file. If it is not possible
to establish dedicated staffing, current staff
Access Brief 1 / Page 3
 Access Brief: Self-Help Services
such as court clerks can be trained to provide
such services as part of their ongoing
responsibilities. Providing such assistance can
also serve to sensitize all staff to the needs of
self-represented litigants more broadly.
Examples:
 Every county in California provides self-help
services in at least some substantive areas.
Initial funding to support the services came
from federal Title IV, Part D formula grants
that are 66% reimbursable when used for
child support establishment, collection, and
enforcement.19
 The Connecticut Judicial Branch has 13
Court Service Centers and 11 Public
Information Desks that are staffed by full-
time Judicial Branch employees. In addition
to providing one-on-one court procedural
assistance, the Court Service Centers
provide access to computers, photo copiers,
fax machines, and public use phones at no
cost. In 2011, the Centers and Desks
assisted 335,489 self-represented parties,
attorneys and members of the public.20
 Minnesota Judicial Branch’s Fourth District
Court serving Hennepin County
(Minneapolis) offers two walk-in Self-Help
Centers.21
Telephone or Internet Based Program
This type of delivery model combines the
benefit of one-on-one assistance with the
power of remote delivery to a broad range of
locations – anywhere there is access to a phone
and/or the internet. This can be particularly
useful in reaching rural or other underserved
areas without the expense of setting up a
program in multiple locations. Statewide
hotlines for civil legal assistance intake are
available in some states for public access or
access by a specific group, such as elderly
litigants, or case type, such as family law cases.
Staffing such hotlines before or after most
court-based services are open and available to
the public is another way to create access to
justice for self-represented litigants who may
be largely unavailable during traditional
business hours. In some cases, it may be easier
to build political and financial support for
statewide rather than local initiatives.
Examples:
 The Alaska Court System Family Law Self-
Help Center provides a statewide telephone
helpline in addition to online information
and forms.22
 The Maryland District Court Self-Help
Center is physically located in one court but
serves as a statewide resource by providing
“virtual” assistance through phone, email
and live chat.23 The live chat button appears
on key court and provider websites.24
Program attorneys can “co-browse” with
individuals to assist with finding relevant
web pages and completing forms and can
send a transcript of the conversation at the
conclusion of the chat.25
 The Minnesota courts provide a statewide
attorney-staffed phone hotline backed up
with online legal information and forms.
Users and staff can “co-browse” to assist
the litigant in finding and using the most
appropriate content.26
In-Person and Online Workshops and
Legal Clinics
In addition to the one-on-one service model,
information can be provided to larger groups
through workshops and clinics. Video
Access Brief 1 / Page 4
 Access Brief: Self-Help Services
conferencing can be incorporated to reach an
even greater audience. Videos and power point
slides can also be offered online to educate
large populations as well as used in workshop
trainings.
Examples:
 The Alaska Family Law Self-Help Center
provides several video clips on how to
prepare for hearings and trials, including
how to select, prepare and question
witnesses and how to select, prepare and
introduce exhibits, present opening and
closing statements and how to make simple
objections.27
 The Minnesota online Self-help Center
provides a variety of “How To” videos such
as “How to File a Motion to Modify Child
Support (Expedited Process).”28
 The New York City Civil Court Housing Part
posts seminars on various topics to their
website. In addition the Access to Justice
Program uses social media such as Twitter
and Facebook to advertize and promote
seminars and other events.29
Courtroom and Caseflow Services
Effective caseflow management involves active
court control of case processing. Cases involving
self-represented litigants require courts to be
even more vigilant regarding the monitoring of
case progress. Courts cannot assume that self-
represented litigants understand the next step
to take in moving their case to resolution.30 As a
result, the court and judge need to be active in
monitoring the case and alerting litigants when
actions are necessary.31 Helping self-
represented litigants understand the process
also helps with compliance once an order has
been issued.32
As part of their caseflow management efforts,
some courts are exploring different ways to
triage self-represented litigant cases based on
their complexity and needed services. In some
instances, this has led to the creation of special
calendars for specific types of cases involving
self-represented litigants. Scheduling all cases
involving self-represented cases on specific days
makes it easier for pro bono attorneys, court
staff, and other volunteers to provide assistance
before, during, and after the hearing. Having
such assistance available helps alleviate
bottlenecks and delay in the courtroom and
helps ensure that cases do not disappear into
limbo.
Examples:
 In Alaska, several of the largest courts have
an Early Resolution mass calendar for newly
filed contested divorce and custody cases
that involve two self-represented parties.
The parties are provided unbundled
volunteer attorneys (coordinated by Alaska
Legal Services) or court mediators who
work with parties; if they are able to reach a
resolution, the court hears the agreements
and finalizes paperwork in the courtroom. 33
 Several courts In California have
implemented special calendars for specific
types of self-represented casetypes such as
those involving family law and guardianship
issues.34
 In Travis County Texas, a bi-lingual
reference attorney staffs the court’s twice
daily uncontested docket. The reference
attorney reviews the self-represented
litigant’s case to confirm that procedural
requirements have been met and ensure
that the litigant’s proposed orders are
Access Brief 1 / Page 5
 Access Brief: Self-Help Services
complete and written in enforceable
language.35
Law Libraries and Public Libraries
Libraries can also be an important part of a
self-help delivery system.36 With increasing
costs of providing legal reference resources and
often limited library budgets, libraries are
collaborating with each other and with courts to
provide services to self-represented litigants.37
Because libraries typically allow access to public
computers and because library staff members
are already trained in assisting the public with
research issues, they are a natural partner for
providing self-help services. A well designed
self-help website, online forms, and
informational videos become even more
effective with the assistance of trained library
staff. A series of webinars, produced by Pro
Bono Net with funding from the Legal Services
Corporation and available online, provides
information on how libraries can access and use
online justice resources to help the public.38
Examples:
 The Connecticut Judicial Branch law
libraries’ self-help website includes an
extensive self-help section with publications
and videos, links to legal assistance and an
“Ask a Librarian” feature which allows
parties to email or call a librarian to get
assistance with their questions.39
 The Maryland State Law Library provides
online access to the Maryland code and
rules through its website. 40 The library also
maintains the People’s Law Library website
that includes an interactive legal services
directory, links to live chat services, and
material in multiple languages. 41
 Montana’s State Law Library serves the
general public with legal questions and
offers assistance to public libraries
regarding legal information and assistance
libraries can offer to the public.42
 The Travis County Law Library in Austin
Texas has a self-help center that provides
online information and forms and offers
appointments with a library reference
attorney who can look over paperwork and
explain the basic steps in an uncontested
family law case. The attorney is also
available in the courtroom to assist in
complex situations.43
 The Utah Legislature passed a bill in May of
2012, establishing a law library self help
center for court patrons.44
Partnerships with Law Schools or
Universities
The downturn in the economy means that
building partnerships and leveraging resources
and expertise are more important than ever.
Law schools are being admonished for not
providing new attorneys with practical skills.45
Growing numbers of litigants are unable to
access civil legal assistance, and college and law
students are finding it increasingly difficult to
find jobs upon graduation. Using students to
expand the delivery and scope of legal
assistance programs provides valuable
experience to the volunteers, needed assistance
to the litigants, and improved efficiencies for
the court.
Example:
 California’s Justice Corps program provides
legal assistance in a court-based setting by
partnering with academic institutions. The
added benefit of recruiting bilingual
students addresses one of the courts’ most
Access Brief 1 / Page 6
 Access Brief: Self-Help Services
pressing problems, the limited English
proficient self-represented litigant.46
 In Baltimore, Maryland, low-income self-
represented family law litigants are referred
to a Pro Bono Mediation Project operated
in partnership with the University of
Baltimore, School of Law. Mediation clinic
students serve as pro bono mediators. Self-
represented litigants also are assigned a pro
bono attorney to represent them through
the mediation process. This permits
litigants access to mediation while enabling
them to be informed and represented
throughout the process.47
Building a Comprehensive Service
Delivery Program: Partnerships for
Access
In practice, some states have found that an
effective strategy for developing and
implementing self-help services is to build a
multi-stakeholder coalition in which, for
example, the courts provide the space and staff
training, legal aid and the bar provide some of
the materials, and libraries provide additional
outside service access points. Support from the
executive and legislative branches also may be
necessary depending on the funding
environment. In some states, access to justice
commissions are taking the lead in building
these coalitions. Leadership from the top of the
court system, as noted earlier, is critical, and
sometimes changes in court rules can be
beneficial.48 To the extent that there is a
possibility of anxiety among stakeholders about
the implications of self-help services, early
consultation with a wide range of stakeholders,
combined with strong leadership is generally
effective in facilitating smooth adoption. A
resource for building service delivery programs
is The Legal Services Corporation which has
invested significant resources in funding self-
help technology and legal information, as well
as encouraging ongoing state and local
partnerships.49
Additional Information and Assistance
The Center on Court Access to Justice for All
produced this Access Brief to highlight several
strategies courts can undertake to improve
access to justice by assisting self-represented
litigants. As noted earlier, the Brief provides
an introduction to several delivery methods
and just a few examples of state activities
underway. To learn more and/or to request
assistance to help implement a strategy,
please visit the Center’s Web site at
www.ncsc.org/atj. If you have information on
court-led efforts to improve access, please
contact the Center at dsaunders@ncsc.org.
Future Access Briefs will cover additional
access topics and discuss some of the
strategies in this Brief in more depth. The
Center’s next Brief, for example, will examine
the importance of standardized simplified
court forms and document assembly, a core
component of any access to justice strategy.
Endnotes
1
For a state by state list of self-
help/information resources and centers see
http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Access-and-
Fairness/Self-Representation/State-Links.aspx.
Also see the ABA Standing Committee on the
Delivery of Legal Services, Self-Help Centers
web page:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/delivery_l
egal_services/resources/pro_se_unbundling_re
source_center/self_service_centers.html. The
ABA is in the process of surveying and updating
their list of self-help centers; the new
Access Brief 1 / Page 7
 Access Brief: Self-Help Services
information should be available in early 2013.
SelfHelpSupport.org’s library of self-help
programs is available (after registering with the
site) at http://www.selfhelpsupport.org/.
2 8
Conference of State Court Administrators.
(2000). Position paper on self-represented
litigation. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for
State Courts (available
http://cosca.ncsc.dni.us/WhitePapers/selfrepliti
gation.pdf).
3
Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of
State Court Administrators Task Force on Pro Se
Litigation. (2004, July). State and national
initiatives to improve access for self-represented
litigants: A progress report. Williamsburg, VA:
National Center for State Courts (available
http://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Access-and-
Fairness/Self-Representation/Resource-
Guide.aspx under “CCJ/COSCA”).
Also see, Judicial Council of California. (2005,
March). Model self-help pilot program: A report
to the legislature. San Francisco: Author
(available
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Self-
Help_full.pdf).
4
The services can also be cost-effective. See
Greacen, J. (2009). The benefits and costs of
programs to assist self-represented litigants.
San Francisco: California Administrative Office
of the Courts, Center for Families, Children &
the Courts (available
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents
/Greacen_benefit_cost_final_report.pdf).
5
Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of
State Court Administrators Task Force on Pro Se
Litigation. (2002). CCJ/COSCA Task Force on Pro
Se Litigation report. Williamsburg, VA: National
Center for State Courts (available
http://ccj.ncsc.dni.us/TaskForceReportJuly2002.
pdf).
6
See, for example, Lippman, J., Prudenti, A. G.,
Fisher, F. A., & Klempner, R. (2011). New York
State courts access to justice program 2011
report. New York: New York State Unified Court
System (available
http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/nya2j/pdfs/NYA2J
_2011report.pdf).
7
See Judicial Council of California (2005) at
endnote 3.
Conference of Chief Justices and Conference
of State Court Administrators. (2002).
Resolution 31: In support of a leadership role for
CCJ and COSCA in the development,
implementation and coordination of assistance
programs for self-represented litigants.
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State
Courts (available
http://ccj.ncsc.dni.us/resol31AsstPgmsSlfLitigan
ts.html).
9
See, for example, Connecticut’s statewide plan
to ensure access throughout the court system:
State of Connecticut Judicial Branch. (2009).
Public Service and Trust Commission strategic
plan phase one implementation report.
Hartford, CT: Author (available
http://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/pst/pst_Ex
ecutiveSummary_FullReport_063009.pdf).
10
Self-Represented Litigation Network. (2008).
Best Practices in Court-Based Programs for the
Self-Represented: Concepts, Attributes and
Issues for Exploration. Williamsburg, VA:
National Center for State Courts (available
http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/
collection/accessfair/id/122). See also
Maryland Judiciary, Best Practices for Programs
to Assist Self-Represented Litigants in Family
Law Matters (2005) available at:
www.mdcourts.gov/family/bestpractices_selfre
p.pdf.
11
See, for example, Broccolina, F., & Zorza, R.
(2008). Ensuring access to justice in tough
economic times. Judicature, 92, 124-128
(available
http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KI
S_BudProAccess.pdf). Also see Greacen (2009)
at endnote 4.
12
Zorza, R. (2006). Trends in self-represented
litigation innovation. In C. Flango, C. Campbell,
and N. Kauder (Eds.), Future trends in state
courts 2006 (pp. 85-88). Williamsburg, VA:
Access Brief 1 / Page 8
 Access Brief: Self-Help Services
National Center for State Courts (available
http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/
collection/accessfair/id/133).
13
See the Center on Court Access to Justice for
All at www.ncsc.org/atj for information on
available assistance.
14
K. Hess, Manager, Court Services Center,
Connecticut Superior Court Operations
(personal communication, October 26, 2012).
15
Maryland Access to Justice Commission.
(n.d.). Beyond compliance: Creating a culture of
inclusivity and accessibility among Maryland
state courts and legal service providers.
Annapolis, MD: Author (available
http://mdcourts.gov/mdatjc/pdfs/beyondcompl
iance.pdf).
16
Maryland Access to Justice Commission.
(n.d.). Accessibility & documents posted online.
Annapolis, MD: Author (available
http://mdcourts.gov/mdatjc/pdfs/creatingacces
siblepdfdoc.pdf). Also see Maryland Access to
Justice Commission, Accessibility web page for
the Commission’s accessibility policy:
http://mdcourts.gov/mdatjc/accessibility.html.
17
See South Carolina Judicial Department Self
Help Resources web page:
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/selfHelp/index.c
fm.
18
See Utah Online Court Assistance Program
web page: http://www.utcourts.gov/ocap/.
19
Administrative Office of the Courts. (2007,
June). California courts self-help centers: Report
to the California Legislature. San Francisco, CA:
Judicial Council of California/Administrative
Office of the Courts (available
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/rpt_leg_
self_help.pdf). Also see Administrative Office of
the Courts. (2012, July). Fact sheet: Child
support commissioner and family law facilitator
program. San Francisco: Author (available
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Child_Su
pport.pdf). For information on Formula Grants
for Social Security, Title IV, Part D Formula
Grants, see Child Support Enforcement, Number
93.563 available on the Catalog for Domestic
Funding Assistance web page:
https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode
=form&tab=core&id=bea918ff274ec64d4ce380
8eb36f2e2f.
20
K. Hess, Manager, Court Services Center,
Connecticut Superior Court Operations
(personal communication, October 26, 2012).
21
See Minnesota Judicial Branch, Fourth District
web page:
http://www.mncourts.gov/district/4/?page=12
28.
22
See Alaska Court System, Self-Help Center:
Family Law web page:
http://www.courts.alaska.gov/selfhelp.htm.
23
See District Court of Maryland, District Court
Self Help Center web page:
http://mdcourts.gov/district/selfhelpcenter/ho
me.html.
24
See, for example, The People’s Law Library
website: www.peoples-law.org.
25
P. Ortiz, Executive Director, Maryland Access
to Justice Commission (personal
communication, November 2, 2012).
26
See Minnesota Judicial Branch, Self-Help
Center web page:
http://www.mncourts.gov/selfhelp/.
27
See Alaska Court System Family Law Self-Help
Center “Getting Ready for Hearing or Trial” web
page:
http://www.courts.alaska.gov/shctrial.htm.
28
See Minnesota Judicial Branch, Self-Help
Center web page:
http://www.mncourts.gov/servicedesk/?page=
4557.
29
See New York State Unified Court System,
New York City Civil Court Housing Part web
page:
http://nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/housing/videos.
shtml. See also Lippman, Prudenti, Fisher, &
Klempner (2011) at endnote 6.
30
See p. 122 in Steelman, D. C., Goerdt, J. A., &
McMillan, J. E. (2004). Caseflow management:
The heart of court management in the new
millennium. Williamsburg, VA: National Center
for State Courts.
Access Brief 1 / Page 9
 Access Brief: Self-Help Services
31
See pp. 32-33 in Greacen, J. M., & Ledray, S.
(2004, November). Report on the programs to
assist self represented litigants of the Harford
County Circuit Court of the state of Maryland.
Annapolis, MD: (available
http://www.courts.state.md.us/family/evaluati
ons_worco.pdf).
32
See Broccolina & Zorza (2008) at endnote 11.
33
S. Marz, Director, Family Law Self-Help
Center, Alaska Court System (personal
communication, October 24, 2012).
34
See Judicial Council of California (2005) at
endnote 3. Also see pp. 22-23 in Hough, B.
(2010). Self-represented litigants in family law:
the response of California’s courts. California
Law Review Circuit, 1, 15-24 (available
http://www.californialawreview.org/assets/pdf
s/Circuit/01.15.Hough.pdf). Additional
descriptions of California programs are included
on pp. 56-57 in Self-Represented Litigation
Network (2008) at endnote 10. For presentation
slides describing a model for default and
uncontested dissolution judgments used in San
Francisco and Santa Clara Counties, see
California Judicial Branch, Equal Access Project,
Service Delivery Models web page for San
Francisco and Santa Clara Counties: Drop-in and
Workshop Model for Default and Uncontested
Dissolution Judgments.
35
L. Holland, Reference Attorney, Travis County
Law Library, Texas (personal communication,
October 26, 2012).
36
Zorza, R. (2012). The sustainable 21st century
law library: Vision, deployment and assessment
for access to justice. Washington, DC: Zorza
Associates (available
http://www.zorza.net/LawLibrary.pdf).
37
Fritschel, B. L. (2007). Trends in library
collaboration to provide access to legal
information. In C. Flango, C. Campbell, and N.
Kauder (Eds.), Future Trends in State Courts
2007 (pp. 84-87). Williamsburg, VA: National
Center for State Courts (available
http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/
collection/accessfair/id/129).
38
See probono.net, Libraries and Access to
Justice Webinar Series web page:
http://www.probono.net/librarywebinars/.
39
K. Hess, Manager, Court Services Center,
Connecticut Superior Court Operations
(personal communication, October 26, 2012).
40
See Maryland State Law Library, Gateway to
Maryland Law web page:
http://mdcourts.gov/lawlib/researchtools/sour
cesmdlaw.html.
41
See The People’s Law Library website:
www.peoples-law.org.
42
See State Law Library of Montana, About Us
web page:
http://courts.mt.gov/library/aboutus.mcpx.
Also see Zorza, R. (2010). Public libraries and
access to justice. In C. Flango, A. McDowell, C.
Campbell, and N. Kauder (Eds.), Future Trends in
State Courts 2010 (pp. 126-129). Williamsburg,
VA: National Center for State Courts (available
http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/
collection/accessfair/id/227).
43
See Travis County Law Library, Self-Help
Center Services web page:
http://www.traviscountylawlibrary.org/ProSe_C
linic1.html.
44
Utah State Legislature, S.B. 100 Law Library
Self-Help Center, available
http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0
100.htm.
45
Sloan, K. (2012, July 5). ABA: Law schools
getting the message on practical skills. The
National Law Journal (available
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?i
d=1202561943191&ABA_Law_schools_getting_
the_message_on_practical_skills_&slreturn=20
120709143056). Also see Magnan, K. (2011,
March). Law schools revamp their curricula to
teach practical skills. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 57(26):
http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/news/thirdyear
chronicle.pdf.
46
See California Courts, The JusticeCorps
Program web page:
Access Brief 1 / Page 10
 Access Brief: Self-Help Services
Justihttp://www.courts.ca.gov/programs-
justicecorps.htm.
47
For more information about the program, see
Rubinson, R. (2011). The pro bono mediation
project: Providing free representation to self-
represented litigants in child access cases. In B.
R. Hough & P. C. Ortiz (Eds.), Innovations for
Self-Represented Litigant (pp. 77-96). Madison,
WI: Association of Family and Conciliation
Courts (see
http://www.afccnet.org/ResourceCenter/Resou
rcesforProfessionals/InnovationsforSelfReprese
ntedLitigants.aspx). Also see University of
Baltimore, School of Law, Mediation Clinic for
Families web page:
http://law.ubalt.edu/clinics/clinics/familymedia
tion.cfm.
48
See, for example, Minnesota Court Rules,
General Rules of Practice, Rule 110. Self-Help
Programs:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/rule.p
hp?name=gp-110.
49
Legal Services Corporation. (2012). Strategic
plan 2012-2016. Washington, DC: Author
(available
http://www.lsc.gov/sites/default/files/LSC/lscg
ov4/LSC_Strategic_Plan_2012-2016--
Adopted_Oct_2012.pdf).
Access Brief 1 / Page 11