Courts need to handle matters efficiently, processing and adjudicating cases in a timely manner. In addition to complying with statutory time limits, courts must deliver certainty and immediacy to all parties.

Efficiency is plainly important in the criminal context. Defendants’ individual liberties are at stake and victims are seeking prompt justice. For a deterrence effect, accountability must follow offenses as soon as possible.

Efficiency matters beyond the court’s criminal docket as well. Expeditious case processing is essential not only to justice but also to the perception of justice. Civil cases that take a very long time to resolve can undermine the perceived legitimacy of the judicial system and reduce trust that the courts will resolve disputes fairly.

Research suggests that because of inefficiencies in the administration of justice, people may be less likely to turn to the courts to resolve their legal issues. In addition, people may be less likely to comply with court orders. Delays also result in increased financial costs.

Improving efficiency in court case flow is necessary to give confidence and satisfaction to those seeking access to justice in the courts’ civil and family divisions. Individuals pursuing personal injury, medical malpractice, employment discrimination, or other civil claims should not have to wait months or even years to have their cases decided.

Moving cases swiftly through the civil docket and family courts would also have a positive effect on public safety. For example, survivors of domestic violence may have pending divorce or child custody cases involving their abusers. When such cases languish, survivors may be further traumatized and unable to obtain closure.

Access to justice in civil matters should not solely focus on the speed of moving cases through the courts, however. The legislature also should ensure that individuals of limited means are assisted with their cases.

In civil court, individuals in poverty cannot afford an attorney and they will not have one appointed for them, as happens in criminal court. Currently a large percentage of cases involve pro se litigants, individuals representing themselves without an attorney. In certain types of cases, the fact that only one side is represented by an attorney often leads to a power imbalance. This is the situation, for example, in eviction cases: Landlords are represented by an attorney in over 90% of the cases while tenants are represented in less than 30% of the cases.

Providing legal assistance in civil cases to those who cannot afford an attorney would help enable stable families and communities. Stability, which is key to crime prevention, is challenged by housing and income inconstancy, substance use disorder, and untreated mental health conditions. Legal assistance organizations provide critical services that help low-income residents address issues impacting their families’ homes, incomes, jobs, and access to vital services. By creating meaningful access to the legal system to resolve disputes, obtain benefits or services, and defend rights and processes, these legal services bring stability to low-income Vermonters.

For example, legal assistance attorneys can help a tenant file an answer in an eviction proceeding, assist an immigrant in obtaining a work authorization permit, or ensure the reinstatement of a family’s health insurance. They can represent a domestic violence victim in a relief-from-abuse hearing, guide a client through the divorce and custody process, or help a low-income family connect with a pro bono bankruptcy attorney.

Low-income legal services help pro se litigants in poverty in a manner that supports families and communities and, in turn, advances public safety. To fulfill this role, these organizations need additional resources. Accordingly, in the current Session, I will be advocating not only for sufficient resources to improve the functioning of the courts, but also for additional resources for legal assistance organizations such as Vermont Legal Aid.