{"id":2722,"date":"2022-10-10T07:37:42","date_gmt":"2022-10-10T12:37:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2722"},"modified":"2024-01-23T17:31:09","modified_gmt":"2024-01-23T23:31:09","slug":"the-right-to-civil-counsel-gender-disparities-in-a-lawyerless-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2722","title":{"rendered":"The Right to Civil Counsel: Gender Disparities in a Lawyerless Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Upon approaching the Supreme Court, visitors, justices, and litigants read the phrase, \u201cEqual Justice Under Law.\u201d These four words, chiseled into the heart of the building, could not be more incorrect in today\u2019s legal landscape. Access to lawyers and justice in America is indeed inequitable. What\u2019s broader: the issue exacerbates America\u2019s economic and gender inequality crisis. Yet for too long, scholars and authorities alike have overlooked<\/a> this legal obstacle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the 1963 Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright<\/em><\/a> granted a right to counsel for all people, it did not extend beyond criminal matters. For civil matters\u2014eviction, abuse, abortion, etc.\u2014poor individuals are denied the right to public lawyers<\/em><\/a>. In effect, this inhibits their ability to use justice systems and enjoy civil rights. Lacking legal resources, impoverished individuals are forced to represent themselves and are much less likely to have their needs met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This burden falls disproportionately on women. In 2014, one report found that nearly 85% of civil litigants in California family courts without an attorney were women<\/a>. Countless other studies around the country find that women and their interests are unrepresented in civil court<\/a>. Intersectionality, too, comes into play: women of color confront this justice deficit even more<\/a>. In aggregate, the fissure in America\u2019s judicial system runs deep: in 2017, low-income individuals\u2014a significant majority of whom are women\u2014received inadequate or no legal help for 86 percent of their civil legal problems<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gendered Effects<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the summer of 1947, Abby Lassiter<\/a>, a Black mother, faced the North Carolina State Court to fight for her parental rights. Because she couldn\u2019t afford an attorney and the state wouldn\u2019t provide one, Lassiter struggled to act as her own lawyer. Ultimately, she lost. The court separated Lassiter from her child and terminated her parenthood. In Lassiter v. Department of Social Services<\/em><\/a>, the Supreme Court found that Fourteenth Amendment \u201cdue process fairness\u201d does not apply to poor civil litigants. Quite simply, indigent individuals are not entitled to lawyers in civil cases. This consequential ruling continues to affect women in three primary legal domains: a) Abortion, b) Domestic Violence, and c) Eviction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lack of a right to civil counsel could not persist at a more dangerous time. With Roe v. Wade<\/em> overturned, twenty-two states are set to restrict abortion as of August 2022<\/a>. Enforcement of these restrictions will almost certainly intrude on privacy, in contravention of the Fourth Amendment\u2019s protection from unreasonable searches. For example, prosecutors may interrogate women<\/a> about \u201cdrug use,\u201d and police may \u201croot through trash bins . . . for empty liquor bottles,\u201d they may access \u201ctext messages . . . \u2026with intimates,\u201d or even \u201ccoerce . . . medical professionals.\u201d To legally combat these civil privacy violations, poor women need a right to counsel. After all, the complexity of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence requires profound legal knowledge that very few laypeople hold. Devoid of counsel, poor women will be stripped of their right to privacy. Even more terrifying is that some states may elevate the punishment for abortion to the death penalty<\/a>, making the scarcity of counsel potentially fatal. Put differently: invasive and often incorrect civil privacy violations in a lawyerless court can push a case into a death penalty criminal proceeding. Though women would have a right to counsel in such a criminal proceeding, a civil right to counsel could prevent them from enduring a criminal proceeding in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simimarly, quarantines during the COVID-19 pandemic precipitated an alarming rise in domestic abuse\u2014in 2020, global domestic violence cases increased by up to up to 33%<\/a>. Outside of the pandemic, domestic violence affects over 12 million households annually and disproportionately impacts women<\/a>. Indeed, roughly 90%<\/a> of reported domestic violence is caused by males in heterosexual relationships. Many legal tools exist to stem this tide of domestic violence, but the lack of free civil counsel often prevents these tools from having any real impact for poor women. For example, civil court orders\u2014an essential tool for combating domestic violence\u2014allow for \u201cjudicial intervention<\/a>\u201d in abusive relationships. Yet one study found that \u201c83 percent of victims represented by an attorney were able to obtain a protective order, whereas only 32 percent of victims without an attorney were able to do so.<\/a>\u201d Impoverished women without legal assistance rarely get the resources needed to end violence<\/a>. <\/em>For domestic violence-related divorces, too, the power dynamic of a lawyerless court leans heavily in the direction of men with attorneys<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And this dynamic is particularly prevalent among the Native American community<\/a>, where women struggle to access justice and escape domestic violence. According to the Indian Law Research Center, \u201cMore than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native women have experienced violence, and more than 1 in 2 have experienced sexual violence<\/a>.\u201d Because so many poor Native Americans, who aren\u2019t well-versed in Western law, are denied civil lawyers<\/a>, they are unable to fight domestic violence. This demonstrates the discriminative impact of administering justice\u2013\u2013the absence of a right to civil counsel effectively shuts the critical window of justice for many Native American communities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a post-pandemic world, evictions are rising precipitously because of soaring rent prices.<\/a> Further augmenting the issue, evictions are one of the most common<\/a> lawyerless cases of all civil justice. Eviction\u2014the practice of removing people from their houses\u2014is well-known for its adverse impact on health, child education, homelessness, and unemployment<\/a>. Women disproportionately experience these impacts. The gender pay gap forces women to spend a much higher proportion of their salary in rent than men,<\/a> which increases the likelihood of women not being able to make rent. One 2012 study of courts in Milwaukee found that women \u201cconstituted 72% of tenants in eviction cases<\/a>.\u201d Making matters worse, Black women are 2.5 times<\/a> more likely to be evicted than Black men. In Philadelphia, a series of eviction examinations found that 70% of cases were filed against women of color.<\/a> This power differential extends to the landlord as well. Ninety percent of landlords<\/a> can access vast legal resources to win eviction cases, while 90% of the female tenants facing eviction have no legal representation or resources. In aggregate, millions of women<\/a> and their children are thrown out of their homes and pushed into poverty because of America\u2019s aristocratic justice system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Equality of Arms<\/a>\u2013\u2013a principle which emphasizes equal opportunity between parties before a tribunal\u2013\u2013speaks volumes about the severity of each of these problems. Without appointed public counsel, poor and uneducated women are ambushed<\/a> by well-versed lawyers with drastically superior resources. At that point, cases are ruled not on the basis of justice but rather on resources. When women\u2019s rights and even lives are at stake, this evil inequality assuming the shape of justice should have no place in courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Broader Implications <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Issues such as abortion, domestic violence, and eviction are only the tip of the iceberg<\/a> \u2014 poor litigants also face legal challenges in lawyerless court cases involving child custody, debt collection, healthcare, immigration, and several other areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When women are denied representation and, consequently, lose their trial, the development of law slows. Debt collection law, for example, has rarely advanced because in several jurisdictions, wealthy creditors are the only party<\/em><\/a>with lawyers over<\/a> 90% of the time. Furthermore, as women are disproportionately denied legal representation, their needs are also reflected much less in the development of law. This perpetuates the systematic subordination and ignorance of women\u2019s interests<\/a> <\/em>that has pervaded US history. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lawyers are the enforcers of constitutional rights<\/a>. So when women have disproportionately less access to lawyers, they have less access to America\u2019s <\/em>democratic and <\/em>constitutional protections. <\/em>While Gideon v. Wainwright<\/em> spawned a coalition of lawyers ready to defend individuals\u2014who are predominantly men<\/a>\u2014facing criminal charges, America is yet to form a coalition that protects civil litigants\u2014who are predominantly women.<\/a> On the whole, this justice gap has reinforced economic privilege and distorted the checks and balances <\/a>that prop up American democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Areas for Reform<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In 2020, the \u201cRecognizing the Right to Counsel in Civil Proceedings Act\u201d<\/a> was introduced to the House Judiciary Committee. Importantly, it would reinforce and assemble state-wide efforts to guarantee the right to civil counsel. Unfortunately, the bill has remained tabled for two years because Congress has prioritized other issues. The gendered effects of lawyerless courts, however, have proven urgent given the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court\u2019s overturning of Roe v. Wade<\/em>. Congress can extend the arm of justice to women by pushing this bill forward. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The process shouldn\u2019t be rushed but instead pointed. Congress should take New York City\u2019s initiatives as a model. The city crafted a program to provide \u201ca right to appointed counsel for individuals living below 250 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.\u201d<\/a> During the first year of the program, 84% <\/a>of the poor tenants who received a lawyer (21,955 individuals) remained in their homes. Such success should be mirrored on the national level through the \u201cRecognizing the Right to Counsel in Civil Proceedings Act.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On top of legislative solutions, the Supreme Court could strengthen America\u2019s civil justice infrastructure in three ways. First, the Supreme Court case <\/em>Goldberg v. Kelly<\/em><\/a> could be used as a legal framework for free appointed civil counsel. The majority asserted that \u201cgeneral welfare\u201d must be promoted by granting the poor \u201cthe same opportunities that are available to others to participate meaningfully in the life of the community<\/a>.\u201d Civic participation in the judicial system categorically falls under this \u201ccommunity participation\u201d doctrine<\/a>. To that end, poorer women and all indigent litigants should be constitutionally entitled to free civil counsel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the Supreme Court can look to the Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s \u201cequal protection under the law\u201d clause. Massachusetts v. Feeney<\/em><\/a> indicates that a disparate impact on a group can trigger the Equal Protection Clause. Here, where the lack of civil counsel disproportionately impacts women, the clause could be applicable because the local and federal governments have refused to provide free civil counsel, despite women being unequally harmed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, Fourteenth Amendment due process interpretations have emphasized the value of civic participation<\/a>. The lack of civil counsel subverts democratic participation in law and, therefore, due process. The Supreme Court must recognize how this strengthens the tide of procedural inequality and openly violates the facets of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond the four walls of the courtroom, millions of women resist reporting domestic violence, protecting their privacy, and even fighting for their homes <\/em>solely because they can\u2019t afford lawyers. And take a look inside the courtroom, and disadvantaged women grapple with highly prepared legal experts. As such, America has effectively suppressed female voices in its courts. Breaking these long-standing legal barriers and closing the justice deficit will be a cultural shift, but it must be done by recognizing the constitutional right to a lawyer in civil trials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ashwin Telang is a writing intern at the\u00a0Borgen\u00a0Project, an\u00a0organization which aims to make international poverty a focus of policy. For their excellent editing and valuable suggestions, he is incredibly grateful to Taylor\u00a0Nchako and Danny\u00a0Damitio.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Upon approaching the Supreme Court, visitors, justices, and litigants read the phrase, \u201cEqual Justice Under Law.\u201d These four words, chiseled into the heart of the building, could not be more incorrect in today\u2019s legal landscape. Access to lawyers and justice in America is indeed inequitable. What\u2019s broader: the issue exacerbates America\u2019s economic and gender inequality crisis. Yet for too long, scholars and authorities alike have overlooked this legal obstacle. While the 1963 Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright granted a right to counsel for…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":177,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2722","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9jSvD-HU","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1467,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1467","url_meta":{"origin":2722,"position":0},"title":"Hively v. Ivy Tech","author":"Matthew Chang","date":"June 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In the summer of 2015, same-sex couples celebrated a civil rights victory following the Supreme Court\u2019s monumental decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court recognized same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marriage, protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. While the right to marriage was immediate, this\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "1L Blog Contest"","block_context":{"text":"1L Blog Contest","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=48"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2643,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2643","url_meta":{"origin":2722,"position":1},"title":"Overturning Qualified Immunity","author":"Emily Atseff","date":"April 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"For decades, qualified immunity has been an evolving controversial legal doctrine. In light of renewed calls to extinguish the defense in state legislatures and Congress, this post adds to the chorus of voices questioning the legal premises of qualified immunity. This post first analyzes the doctrine against the backdrop of\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":274,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=274","url_meta":{"origin":2722,"position":2},"title":"“Reasonably Necessary”: Ayestas v. Davis and Capital Defense Funding for Federal Habeas Proceedings","author":"Eva Derzic","date":"November 20, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"On October 30, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument about the availability of funding for capital defense investigations in Ayestas v. Davis. The specific issue before the Court was whether\u00a018 U.S.C.\u00a0\u00a7 3599(f)\u00a0allows courts to order funding for federal habeas counsel to investigate and develop ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims not raised\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/14864898642_0e678083fe_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/14864898642_0e678083fe_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/14864898642_0e678083fe_k-1024x683.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":803,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=803","url_meta":{"origin":2722,"position":3},"title":"Brendan Dassey Asks Supreme Court to Hear His Case","author":"Elizabeth Wurm","date":"March 29, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Brendan Dassey, who gained national recognition in 2015 from Netflix\u2019s \u201cMaking a Murderer\u201d docuseries, is now bringing his story to the U.S. Supreme Court. Dassey's attorneys, Laura Nirider and Steve Drizin, co-directors of the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth at Northwestern's Bluhm Legal Clinic, recognize the uphill battle that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/450px-Brendan_Dassey.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":55,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=55","url_meta":{"origin":2722,"position":4},"title":"Panel Discussion: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission","author":"Argie Mina","date":"October 30, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"On October 12, 2017, OUTLaw, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law\u2019s LGBT affinity group, hosted a panel discussing Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, an upcoming Supreme Court case. The case centers on whether businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ customers based on their First Amendment rights to free\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "On Campus"","block_context":{"text":"On Campus","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=17"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2516,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=2516","url_meta":{"origin":2722,"position":5},"title":"Remote vs. In-Person Testimony in Hong Kong Courts","author":"Martin Kwan","date":"June 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Should the pursuit of effective scrutiny of witnesses override public health considerations and the witness\u2019s right to health? Recently in Hong Kong, there has been a debate on whether a witness can choose to give evidence via video-conferencing facilities (VCF) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Contrary to the practices of allowing\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Other Issues"","block_context":{"text":"Other Issues","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=194"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2722","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/177"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2722"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2722\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2722"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2722"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2722"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}