On Oct. 11, 2009, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law AB590, the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act. The act is named after Shriver, the governor’s father-in-law, because of Shriver’s efforts to help build legal services programs in the 1960s. The act authorizes the creation of pilot programs in selected counties, beginning on July 1, 2011 and running to July 1, of 2017, that will provide free legal services to those who have civil cases involving critical issues affecting basic human needs. California becomes the first state in the nation to create a civil right to counsel program.

The term “Civil Gideon” stems from the landmark 1963 United States Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright where the court held that, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, indigent criminal defendants were entitled to free legal counsel. The author of that opinion, Justice Hugo Black wrote, “The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law.”

AB590, authored by Assembly Democrat Mike Feuer of Los Angeles, will require the appointment of legal counsel to represent low-income parties in civil matters involving housing-related matters, domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders, probate conservatorships, guardianships of the person, elder abuse, or actions by a parent to obtain sole legal or physical custody of a child. Services are to be provided by public interest law groups chosen by the Judicial Council of California, the agency which administers the state court system.

The services will be paid for by a $10 increase in certain civil court filing fees. The state estimates those fees will generate $11 million annually. In order to be eligible for service an individual’s annual income must be no more than 200 percent above the federal poverty guidelines. For a family of four, that would mean an annual income of $44,000 or less.

Assemblyman Feuer in support of the bill was quoted in the Los Angeles Times saying, “How ironic that you can be arrested for stealing a small amount of food - - a box of Twinkies from a convenience store - - and you’re entitled to counsel. But if your house is on the line, or your child is on the line, or you’re being abused in a domestic relationship, you don’t have the same right to counsel.”

Other proponents of the act note that as many as 4.3 million Californians are unrepresented in civil court matters. According to Julia Wilson, executive director of the Legal Aid Association of California, legal aid groups within the state turn away as many as two-thirds of those seeking help because of lack of resources. Ronald George, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court has noted that flood of self-represented litigants has greatly increased the cost of running the courts and impairs the ability of the courts to efficiently process heavy caseloads, thus eroding the public’s confidence in the judicial system.

Opponents of the measure argue that the civil courts in the pilot counties will become even more congested as those with free attorneys will be less inclined to reach settlements and more inclined to litigate matters at the courthouse.

From where I sit this is an experiment worth trying. The laws and legal procedures of California are complicated and difficult to comprehend, even for those educated in other fields. I often cringe when I observe unrepresented litigants in custody or restraining order cases shrivel up into frightened and babbling shells of themselves when they have their turn in front of the judge and are opposed competent legal counsel or, worse yet, abusers. On the other hand, it would sure be nice to see a push for improvements in our educational and social service systems so that some of these folks might never have to be in the court system in the first place.

(Direct your questions and comments to Mike@Mercedlaw.com.)