On January 6, 2005, HALT submitted testimony to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee in support of Proposal 04-08, which, if passed, would increase the small claims court jurisdictional limit to $7,500.

Although supportive of this increase, HALT Senior Counsel Tom Gordon urged the Supreme Court to consider an even less restrictive limit such as $10,000 or $15,000, which would bring Illinois in line with the nation's most accessible small claims court systems.

In addition to increasing the Illinois small claims court jurisdictional limit, HALT suggested a number of reforms that should be implemented to reform small claims courts nationwide. They are:

1. Providing assistance with collecting judgments. Once people have entered the small claims system, the biggest problem they face is collecting a judgment if they win their case. A recent Washington state reform provides a useful model. In 2004, the state adopted a new law that requires losing parties who do not pay within thirty days of a judgment against them to pay for the plaintiff's collection costs. This law will provide additional incentive for losing parties to pay on time and will also allow plaintiffs to hire collection agents to help them get the money to which they are entitled.

2. Authorizing small claims judges to issue court orders. In most states, including Illinois, small claims courts can only award money damages. Small claims courts cannot issue court orders that require someone to "cease and desist" from actions that harm others. This limitation means that many small disputes between neighbors or over contract rights cannot be dealt with in small claims court. The lack of the ability to issue court orders also means that small claims judges often cannot help people collect a judgment they have won. Fully empowering small claims judges to handle cases and problems that require a court order is a major reform that would improve consumer service within the small claims system.

3. Expanding small claims dispute resolution programs. Because many small claims involve disputes between neighbors, partners and others who know each other, and who often must co-exist in the future, the exclusive reliance on a court-based, adversarial system can actually make matters worse in the long run. Mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods are one way to avoid some of the lasting antagonisms that are produced by court fights. Of the Illinois courts surveyed by HALT for the 2004 Small Claims Report Card, only Cook County offers mediation services to help people resolve their disputes amicably before facing a judge. The District of Columbia has implemented an innovative "diversion" program that tries to redirect small disputes out of the court system. Such diversion programs tailored to small claims courts offer a significant reform that will help legal consumers receive better service from the system.

4. Making small claims courts user- friendly. Americans also avoid courts that operate on "bankers hours," require special forms, and tell consumers they are on their own. None of the Illinois courts surveyed by HALT for the 2004 Small Claims Report Card hold evening or weekend sessions, making it impossible for many people to use the courts without missing work. In addition, with the exception of Adams County, none of the Illinois courts surveyed by HALT employ small claims advisors-court employees whose primary job is to help people navigate the small claims system.

On December 17, 2004, HALT submitted comments to the Nebraska Supreme Court urging the Court to reject a proposed definition of the practice of law.

Citing a lack of consumer advocates involved in creating this rule, HALT commented that "[i]t is puzzling that a set of rules ostensibly designed to protect consumers takes so little account of consumer needs. In reality, contrary to its asserted purpose of consumer protection, this set of rules could easily be re-titled the 'Full Employment for Attorneys Act.'"

In addition, Senior Counsel Tom Gordon commented that "The organized bar would have lawmakers believe that there is an epidemic of non-lawyers providing inadequate legal services to the public. In fact, non-lawyers can provide valuable services to the large number of people who are otherwise priced out of access to legal services. The greatest problem facing those who need legal help is that the bar does not provide average people the legal help they need."

In sum, HALT recommended that the Court reject this transparent attempt by the bar to stifle its competition and to instead listen to the voices of consumers nationwide by adopting rules that would give them a real say in their own legal affairs.

Arizona: Freedom of Legal Information

In late 2004, the Maricopa County Superior Court began offering a unique online service for legal consumers wishing to file an uncontested divorce without a lawyer. By filling out a simple questionnaire at the county's E-Court, couples can easily complete and print out divorce forms. The county implemented the program to assist family law litigants who cannot afford or do not wish to hire a lawyer. One Maricopa family court judge estimates that at least 80 percent of all family law litigants are self-represented. To visit the county's E-Court, please click here.

Connecticut: Small Claims Court

In January 2005, the Connecticut State Legislature will consider a proposal to increase the maximum amount of money damages in small claims action from $3,500 to $10,000. This proposal will increase the ability of Connecticut legal consumers to resolve disputes that do not necessarily require a lawyer and add to the system's overall accessibility. The state received a dismal grade of "D" in HALT's 2004 Small Claims Report Card, tying for the tenth worst score in the country. Read the proposed bill and track its progress.

Indiana: Small Claims Court

In January 2005, the Indiana State Legislature will consider a proposal to increase the jurisdictional limit of the Marion County small claims court from $6,000 to $12,000 in actions founded on contract, except for actions founded on a contract to rent or lease real property. The proposal would take effect July 1, 2005, and apply to all cases pending in a Marion County small claims court after June 30, 2005 as well as all cases filed in a Marion County small claims court after June 30, 2005. Read the proposed bill and track its progress.

Kentucky: Small Claims Court

In January 2005, the Kentucky State Legislature will consider a proposal to increase the amount of money damages in small claims court from $1,500 to $3,000 for both claims and counterclaims. This measure will increase small claims accessibility and help improve the state's system, which received a grade of "F" in HALT's 2004 Small Claims Report Card. Kentucky was tied for the lowest dollar limit in the nation, and received the lowest overall score in the entire nation. Read the proposed bill and track its progress.

Louisiana: Freedom of Legal Information

The Louisiana Bar is considering a rule that would allow for multijurisdictional practice of law in the state. If passed, consumers in Louisiana would be able to hire an out-of-state lawyer much more easily. HALT support this rule and any other that increases competition between lawyers, hopefully leading to lower costs and increased proficiency among legal service providers.

Massachusetts: Freedom of Legal Information

In 2004, a Massachusetts Bar Association task force proposed an expansive definition of the practice of law, which threatens to limit legal consumers' access to a range of legal service providers, including less expensive nonlawyers, in the state. In December, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division urged the bar to reject the proposal. HALT has urged various states and the American Bar Association to craft definitions of the practice of law that are meant to protect legal consumers from fraudulent service providers, rather than to shield lawyers from economic competition. To read HALT's model definition of the practice of law, please click here.

Massachusetts: Freedom of Legal Information

On January 1, 2005, new rules went into effect in Massachusetts that allow retired and inactive attorneys to do pro bono work. With this rule, Massachusetts joins only 13 other states and the District of Columbia that are thinking creatively to give low- and moderate-income Americans access to justice. HALT supports this rule and hope that other states will follow suit.

Montana: Small Claims Court

In late 2004, the Montana State Legislature began drafting a bill that will increase the state's jurisdictional limit on small claims from $3,000 to $10,000. The bill is currently in the delivery process and HALT will continue to provide updates on its progress. HALT hopes that the passing of this bill will help contribute to the development of small claims reform across the nation. Track the progress of the bill.

Ohio: Freedom of Legal Information

In a victory for advocates of increasing access to legal services, the Ohio Supreme Court in December 2004 held that it is not the unauthorized practice of law for nonlawyers to appear and practice in a representative capacity before the Industrial Commission and Bureau of Worker's Compensation. HALT supports the Ohio court's decision and hopes that other states follow Ohio's lead to increase access to competent nonlawyer service providers. Click here for more information on HALT's work with unauthorized practice of law rules.

North Dakota: Small Claims Court

On January 13, 2005, the North Dakota State Legislature passed a bill relating to the awarding of attorney's fees in cases removed from small claims court to district court. The measure states that if a defendant elects to move a claim from small claims to district court, then the district court may award attorney's fees to the plaintiff if it finds the defendant's position to be without merit or unjustified. Read the text of the bill.

Virginia: Lawyer Accountability

The Virginia State Bar Association is considering a proposal that would improve their already successful mandatory malpractice insurance disclosure rule. As it stands now, an attorney must report if they have malpractice insurance yearly on their registration form. The new proposal would augment this rule and require any attorney who loses their insurance to notify the Bar within 30 days. This information would be immediately available on the Bar's Web page. HALT is planning to submit testimony in support of this rule in February 2005. Stay tuned for updates! Click here to see the Virginia Bar's great Web site, where anyone can look up an attorney to see if he or she has insurance or has ever been disciplined.

Washington: Freedom of Legal Information

On December 15, 2004, a Washington Court Funding Task Force released a report that found the court system is seriously under-funded and can no longer guarantee "full, equitable and expeditious justice." According to the report, a primary reason the court's funding is precarious is that the state government does not adequately fund the courts, leaving the costs up to cities and counties. Click here to read the final report, "Justice in Jeopardy."

Wisconsin: Lawyer Accountability

In late 2004, the Wisconsin Bar signed an agreement with a major insurance company to provide every lawyer in Wisconsin malpractice insurance for pro bono work. The Bar hopes that this move will encourage in-house and government lawyers, who previously had no individual insurance policy that would cover their work, to help provide access to justice for low- and moderate-income Wisconsinites.

Dear HALT:

Dear Worried:

You have no sure-fire way of preventing a contractor from walking off the job, but you can reduce the chance of it happening and protect yourself at the same time by following a few simple rules.

Shop carefully. Talk to friends, relatives and business associates about contractors they've used or whose work they know. Eliminate those they warn you against. Ask those that remain for names and telephone numbers of past clients. Not only can these clients tell you what it was like working with the contractor, they may let you see the work that was done so you can judge its quality yourself.

Ask the Better Business Bureau or a local Office of Consumer Affairs if any complaints have been filed against the contractors you're considering. Ask also for any information they have on home-improvement contractors and on dealing with contractors in general.

Insist on a written contract. A carefully crafted contract will help avoid misunderstandings by making clear the legal responsibilities and rights of both sides. Many contractors will offer a short contract that protects their rights but not yours. If your contractor refuses to modify such a contract to include your protections, you probably should hire someone else instead.

If you're not comfortable using the contractor's agreement, you can use a standard-form agreement available from legal stationery stores or write your own contract. An excellent resource is Hiring Independent Contractors: The Employer's Legal Guide, by Stephen Fishman, published by Nolo Press, 1-800-728-3555 or www.nolo.com. This book explains what you need to know about working with contractors and suggests language for many kinds of contracts.

Your contract should explain exactly what needs to be done, when it needs to be completed, how much it will cost and when you will pay. Depending on your needs, you may also want to include other clauses. For example, to avoid delays or incomplete work, you may want to include a clause stating that "time is of the essence." These words tell the contractor that the completion dates are important to you and that if the job isn't finished on time, you will be compensated in some way, either by having your bill reduced a specified amount each day the job is not done or by requiring the contractor to pay any damages caused by the lateness.

Pay in installments. Most important, withhold at least part of the contractor's payment until after the job has been completed to your satisfaction. A contractor only wants to do what is profitable. When you have paid in full, the contractor has less incentive to finish the job or to take the time needed to do the job right. A typical payment plan is to give the contractor 10 percent as a down payment and 30 percent as each third of the job is completed. Hold back the final payment a week or two after the job is done in case you find problems you didn't detect immediately.

Finally, include a contract clause that explains how disputes will be resolved. Many service contracts include an arbitration or mediation clause that provides a quick and inexpensive forum for resolving disputes without the expense and hassles of going to court. This will protect you from litigation and from spending more time and money than you'd like while still waiting for work on your kitchen to be completed.