In 2008, it is likely that more than 90% of the civil cases involving individuals will have at least one unrepresented party by the time of disposition.

The vast majority (over 90%) of Californians earn less than $100,000 per year before taxes or, assuming 50 working weeks per year, 40 hours per week, $50.00 per hour. Assuming a 25% tax rate, the after-tax earnings of the vast majority of Californians are less than $37.50 per hour.

The vast majority of the experienced trial lawyers in California charge over $300/hour, which is 8 times greater than the hourly earnings of the vast majority of Californians. For one hour of the attorney’s time, the vast majority of Californians has to work more than one day.

Let’s assume that an average civil case has a trial of 3 days and 3 hearings on 3 motions. For every hour of trial, a competent trial attorney would spend at least 3 hours of preparation, including research of legal issues and writing the trial briefs. For every motion, a competent trial attorney would spend at least 2 hours on paperwork and 2 hours in the trial court. In addition, attorney would spend at least 8 hours on meetings with the client, 2 days on depositions (1 day for each litigant), 8 hours on other discovery, and 10 hours on correspondence with another party and settlement efforts.

Thus, at the very minimum, an average civil case would require 150 hours of attorney’s time or $45,000 from the litigant. A competent trial attorney would require a $5,000 to $10,000 retainer.

The vast majority (over 90%) of Californians should work more than 150*8=1200 hours or 150 full days or 5 additional months to make money to pay for attorney’s fees in an average civil case.

In 2004, 80% of the family law cases had at least one unrepresented party by the time of disposition[1]. Since 2004, the hourly rate of attorney’s fees has gone up, whereas the economic conditions in California deteriorated. Over 405,000 of self-represented Californians earn less than $2,000 per month[2]. It is not a surprise that the vast majority of the honest working Californians (over 90%) simply cannot afford legal representation and become self-represented litigants at some time during the litigation.

In the family law proceedings, there is no jury, and a divorce or a juvenile delinquency case gets assigned to one judge for all purposes. Thus, in the family law proceedings in California, the trial judges have the absolute power and their word is the law. In California trial courts’ family law departments alone, over 150,000 divorces are filed each year[3].

All trial judges are former lawyers and, therefore, have implicit bias against self-represented litigants. Many of the trial judges are also explicitly biased against self-represented litigants.

The fundamental requirement of the due process of law is to have an unbiased and competent judge ruling in the case. If the assigned judge is biased for any reason, the only way to have an impartial judge is to request a disqualification of the assigned judge.

An unbiased judge has no interest in the case and, therefore, will gladly recuse himself at the request of a party. A biased judge, to the contrary, has an interest in the outcome of the case and, therefore, wants to control the case. A biased judge, consequently, will likely refuse to recuse himself or herself and will harbor hostility against and seek to punish the party that requested disqualification.

            By statute, specifically Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(d), “the determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision and only by the parties to the proceeding” (bold added).

A self-represented litigant, naturally, is not familiar either with the Code of Civil Procedure or with the know-how on preparation of the Petition for Writ[4]. To over 405,000 of self-represented Californians, who earn less than $2,000 per month, and many others, filing fee for a petition for writ of $655 is an exorbitant amount.

Even if a self-represented litigant files in 10 days a required Petition for Writ and a Request for Fee Waiver at the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal will summarily deny his/her Petition for Writ. Currently, the Court of Appeal denies over 95% of ALL petitions for writ, so a self-represented litigant has a zero chance of having his/her Petition for Writ reviewed and adjudicated on its merits.  

After his/her Petition for Writ gets summarily denied by the Court of Appeal, a self-represented litigant can file a Petition for Review at the Supreme Court of California. The Supreme Court has the discretion in deciding whether to review or not a Petition for Review.

But, according to the Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(d) “the determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal…”. (bold added). Moreover, the California Constitution, Article 6, section 14 states in part that “Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated”. (bold added).

Thus, it is a violation of the California law for the Court of Appeal to summarily deny the statutory Petition for Writ.

Currently, over 95% of all filed Petitions for Writ are summarily denied by the Court of Appeal in California. Due to exorbitant attorney’s fees for preparation of a Petition for Writ (over $10,000 in most cases), the vast majority of filed Petitions for Writ are statutory required petitions and the only way to have an issue reviewed by the Court of Appeal.

If the Court of Appeal willfully violates the California laws, including the California Constitution, because of the lack of manpower to speedily handle ALL cases, why would we expect the trial courts, with even fewer resources and manpower, to follow the California law? 

Chief Justice George wrote an opinion in Elkins v. Superior Court (Elkins) (2007) 41 Cal.4^th 1337, which stated:

“Courts must earn the public trust”.[5] (bold added).

“… family law litigants should not be subjected to second-class status or deprived of access to justice.”[6] (bold added).

“When the two policies collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency”. [7] (bold added)

How can the justices of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court talk about “the due process of law” and at the same time authorize prejudiced trial judges to rule the lives of Californians and punish and torture self-represented Californians for requesting disqualification of an abusive trial judge?

It is an absurdity and hypocrisy when the highest judges of the State of California ignore the California law for the sake of efficiency, but require the lowest courts and the trial judges to follow the California law and, thus, give up efficiency.

In fiscal 2005-2006, 9.2 million cases were filed in the trial courts[8]. For millions of self-represented nothings, the California laws are unenforceable, they exist only on paper. The word of a trial judge is the law.

The myths of “democracy” and “equal access to justice” in California should be explained. The word “demo” in reality is “money”, and “democracy” in reality is “moneycracy”. The phrase “equal access to justice” in reality is “equal access to judge”. When the so-called “justice” is whatever the trial judge decides regardless of the law and the truth, it is a pure injustice.

Fairness and conscience are the cornerstones of humanity since they were confirmed only in humans and not in other animals[9]. Unlike all men-created and always changing laws, fairness and conscience are as fundamental for humanity as the law of gravity for physics and the Universe. Fairness and conscience have been carried by the human race through thousands of years and tens of religions as the simple Golden Rule: “Treat others as you want to be treated. Don’t do to others what you would not want to be done upon yourself”.

It is NOT fair or humane or democratic to deny justice to over 90% of Californians. What is happening to millions of un-humanized self-represented Californians is so fundamentally wrong, unjust, and inhumane, that it reminds the treatment of “the enemies of the working class” during Stalin in the Soviet Union and the treatment of the Jewish people during Hitler in Germany. 

The Court of Appeal should review ALL statutory Petitions for Writ on their merits, as required by law, because the majority of those petitions are requests for review of an unlawful denial of a request for disqualification of the prejudiced trial judge.

If the Court of Appeal adjudicates on the merits ALL filed Petitions for Writ, it will reduce its own workload by more than half, because most of Appeals will not be filed or will have significantly fewer issues to adjudicate.

One lesson to be learned is to never be married in California because people change and it takes just one spouse to start the divorce litigation. Then the other spouse cannot escape the courtroom, unless he or she is willing to accept a grossly unfair settlement. Since most Californians cannot afford to pay over $50,000 for experienced family law attorney’s services, the choice is really simple: accept an unfair settlement, i.e. give up your humanity and need for fairness and conscience, or go through the horrors of being a self-represented litigant.