California's small-claims courts are nationally known for their ability to provide a quick and user-friendly means of resolving disputes without the use of an attorney. I was surprised, then, when California was not the highest-rated state in the 2004 Small Claims Report Card by my organization, Halt Inc.

While the state's small-claims courts are doing well in many areas, California is standing still while other states pass it in one important area: the state's low dollar limit for small-claims cases. California small-claims courts have a maximum jurisdiction of $5,000, earning them a "C" grade for this category on Halt's report card.

Other states, including Georgia, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah, have small-claims courts with higher jurisdictional limits. California's small-claims jurisdiction has not increased since 1990. At that time, only one state had a higher small-claims jurisdiction than California.

In the 14 intervening years, however, California's $5,000 small-claims jurisdiction has become the national median. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia have raised their dollar limit since California last increased its own.

All of these other states have recognized that consumers and small businesses face greatly increased dollar values in their everyday transactions. Simple home remodeling can cost $10,000 or more; the average price of a new car is more than $20,000. A court that is billed as the "people's court" needs to keep pace with the problems of everyday people. For this reason, Halt advocates an increase in the small-claims jurisdictional limit to $20,000.

As a result of California's low small-claims dollar limit, many Californians are caught in a legal no man's land with claims greater than $5,000 but too small to hire an attorney. The State Bar committee on administration of justice has supported an increase in the dollar limit to $10,000 "because it is no longer cost-effective to hire an attorney to pursue a claim for $5,000 to $10,000."

Even with the simplified procedures of limited civil cases, an attorney easily could spend enough hours on a case to earn the bulk of a $20,000 judgment. With representation by counsel not a financially viable option for cases worth between $5,000 and $20,000, the litigant is left with two undesirable choices: litigate the case in pro per, in a court intended for attorneys, or forgo the amount of the claim in excess of $5,000 and sue in small-claims court for perhaps a fraction of the amount at issue.

Opponents of an increase argue that allowing larger disputes into small-claims court will hurt the quality of justice in these cases. Much of this concern stems from our tendency as lawyers to believe that a fair trial cannot occur without depositions, interrogatories, production requests, motions in limine and multiple motions for summary judgment before we meet our adversary in front of a judge and a jury.

However, the pro per litigant with a case against a contractor who took $9,000 and left her with a half-remodeled kitchen doesn't care about or need full-blown discovery. What she needs is a forum where she can resolve a simple "he said, she said" dispute quickly.

Defendants are not well served by all of the "protections" of the complete panoply of rules of civil procedure, either. While lawyers think nothing of preparing a response to a motion for summary judgment, the typical nonlawyer in a court of general jurisdiction automatically loses her low-dollar-value case because she doesn't know how to respond to this pleading.

California provides a high quality of justice to its small-claims litigants. The state earned an "A" grade on Halt's report card in the category of "Self-Help," in large part because of its nationally recognized small-claims adviser program.

California is the only state in the country with small-claims advisers in every county. California also provides extensive written information about how to use the small-claims court, both in pamphlets at the courthouse and on the California Courts Self-Help Center Web site. In fact, California's small-claims assistance programs are so far ahead of the rest of the country that only one other state earned a grade as high as a "B" for this category.

Furthermore, the quality of justice will not suffer if the state increases the small-claims dollar limit. In a recent Halt survey of small-claims advisers, all 26 respondents said that they were able to meet the demand for their services.

California, in particular, has little need for concern about the quality of justice available to litigants if it raises its small-claims jurisdiction. Another Halt study found that an increase in jurisdiction has little effect -a 5 percent increase - on small-claims caseloads.

Five years ago, Georgia, the one state ahead of California on the report card, increased its small-claims jurisdiction from $5,000 to $15,000 and saw a decrease in caseload. Given that small-claims advisers are meeting the needs of those they serve, a slight increase in small-claims litigation should not hurt those being served by the small-claims courts.

Finally, if raising small-claims court jurisdiction were bad policy, some state legislature would have recognized the ill effects of higher dollar limits and repealed an increase it had implemented. Yet, while states have raised their small-claims jurisdiction hundreds of times in the last few decades alone, no state has ever lowered its small-claims jurisdiction.

Georgia has had a $15,000 limit on small-claims for five years. Tennessee's limit has been $15,000 ($25,000 in some counties) for seven years. Neither state has made an effort to lower these ceilings. The problems of average Californians are at least as expensive as the problems of Georgians and Tennesseans.

California's small-claims court system is the best in the country in every respect except for its low jurisdiction. Despite such a robust small-claims court system, Californians unfortunately can use it only for a small portion of their everyday disputes. The Legislature should act immediately to increase the limit to a level that can meet the needs of its constituents.

*Thomas M. Gordon is senior counsel with HALT, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer group that supports an accessible and affordable justice system.