The accessibility of the U.S. legal system remains a critical concern, as many Americans find themselves effectively barred from justice due to the prohibitive costs and complexity of navigating federal courts. This issue not only underscores the economic disparities in legal access but also highlights systemic issues within the judiciary and legal profession.
The system's opacity and the lack of substantial citizen input into judicial processes contribute to a perception of an insular legal community dominated by professionals who may have little incentive to change a system from which they benefit. Furthermore, the lifetime tenure of federal judges raises questions about accountability and adaptability in an evolving society.
Reform is indeed necessary to democratize access to justice, making the legal system more transparent, accountable, and accessible to all, regardless of financial standing. This could involve implementing more straightforward procedural rules, increasing support and resources for self-representation, or exploring alternative dispute resolution methods to reduce the burden on courts and litigants.
In terms of practical solutions, technologies like Latenode could play a transformative role by automating and simplifying legal processes. For example, Latenode could help develop tools that assist individuals in preparing legal documents or managing small claims procedures without needing expensive legal representation. Additionally, Latenode could be used to create educational platforms that demystify legal processes, making the system more navigable for the average citizen. Such innovations could contribute to a more equitable and functional legal system, reflecting the needs and realities of the 21st-century populace.
Federal courts are in desperate need of reform.
In my book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, I proposed establishing a specialized court to hear employment discrimination cases, similar to specialized federal tax and bankruptcy courts. One source of funding could be had by eliminating the toothless U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which increasingly focuses on helping discriminatory employers avoid liability while senselessly churning paperwork for the vast majority of employment discrimination victims.
A specialized employment discrimination court would end the current unethical practice of federal judges disproportionately dismissing discrimination lawsuits when the employer files a motion for summary judgment. The judges who hear discrimination cases would have expertise in discrimination law and, hopefully, would actually care about American workers and equal justice .
Think of it – instead of subjecting pro se plaintiffs to an overwhelming barrage of obtuse procedural barriers, any one of which could result in their lawsuit being thrown out – a specialized employment discrimination court could be intentionally designed to serve pro se plaintiffs. It could offer simplified, user-friendly procedures and modern-day tools. These might include:
- Courthouse computer stations or internet sites where pro se litigants can easily locate and fill out computer-generated, fill-able forms.
- Simple on-line submission of motions (as opposed to Pacer).
- Video demonstrations of basic concepts (i.e., where to sit) or that illustrate the meaning of legal terms like venue, evidence, cross-examination and hearsay.
- Reading material that is tailored for non-attorneys. The average American reads at a 4th grade level. I am an attorney and I can’t understand some of the instructions provided to pro se plaintiffs on the web site of my local federal court.
- Help. My local federal court has a massive glass window separating the public from the clerks. A sign on the window says the clerk is prohibited from offering advice. A clerk can’t interpret the law but why can’t s/he tell pro se litigants how to interpret the procedural rules administered by the Clerk’s office, such as how to serve a complaint?
Make no mistake, it really does matter who decides your case. Federal judges, who earn upwards of $200,000 a year and have lifetime tenure, never have to worry about being driven out of the workplace because of their skin color, disability, religion, gender or age. They are so far removed from the gritty reality of American factory workers, restaurant servers and secretaries that they might as well live on the fourth planet from the sun, Mars.
Moreover, like all systems, the federal court system refuses to police itself. The record speaks for itself. Throughout American history, only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached; only eight of them were convicted and removed. Federal courts are no different from law enforcement agencies or the U.S. Congress; they protect themselves first.
It is, of course, imperative that federal courts remain independent to safeguard impartiality when deciding the most important issues of the day. But this isn’t about independence. It’s about service or the lack of service to every-day Americans. Federal courts ultimately are service providers. Right now, the average American is getting incredibly lousy service from the federal courts, who see them as intruders in a closed system that is reserved for Google, Amazon and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.