No Access to Justice Without Access to a Lawyer

Introduction

Self-represented litigants (“SRLs”), previously referred to as pro se litigants, play a major role in divorce and child custody cases in Cook County. Every year, the Domestic Relations Division handles approximately 40,000 divorce and child protection cases.¹ Of those, it’s been reported that at least fifty percent to as many as eighty-five percent of cases involve SRLs.² Many of these litigants struggle to navigate the court system. On top of the necessary paperwork to fill out and hearing dates they are required to attend, many also struggle paying rent or earning enough to live above the poverty line. Some are intimidated by the language barrier, since they may not speak English.

These challenges put a burden on the court’s ability to administer justice in child custody cases efficiently and fairly. Self-represented litigants often come to court without all the documents required to legally divorce them, causing the court to turn them away and reschedule their hearing for another time. Also, SRLs often make arguments that are not coherent, making it difficult for the court to follow. While courts can provide limited legal resources, they are supposed to hold SRLs to the same standard as family lawyers, some of whom have decades of experience. These complicating factors often leave SRLs wondering if justice has truly been served.

From my more than six years as a judge in the Domestic Relations Division, I’ve concluded we cannot achieve access to justice in family law without access to a lawyer. Self-represented litigants with few resources would be much better served with an objective understanding of the law from legal counsel instead of relying on their own subjective feelings, especially when a child’s welfare is on the line. This can be accomplished through a right to counsel that already exists in criminal law and, in some jurisdictions, child custody cases. It is time for the legal profession to recognize its duty and advocate fiercely for the extension of this right. This article argues for the creation of a limited public defender system for indigent self-represented parties involved in child custody disputes. Only then will each litigant have access to justice.

Motivations of a self-represented litigant

Unsurprisingly, most people who choose to represent themselves do not have the money to hire a lawyer. A study in 2016 surveyed family courts across the United States and found more than 90% of SRLs indicated financial considerations were influential, if not determinative, in deciding to represent themselves.³ Broken down further, 60% of those making under $20,000 per year said hiring a lawyer was unaffordable, while 50% of those making between $20,000 to $40,000 per year reported the same thing.⁴ Bringing this data back home, 29% of custodial parents in Illinois’s child support enforcement system live below the poverty line,⁵ which in 2025 means an annual income of $15,650 per person.⁶ While child support isn’t the only issue I hear, this provides a compelling snapshot of how many people believe it is better to go through the courts alone. As one person reported, “[I]t’s still not optional to go spend $4,000 or $5,000 on an attorney—that’s more of a luxury really.”⁷ A luxury? It’s an indictment of our judicial system that people believe access to legal representation is only available to those with money.

Even if affordability isn’t a significant problem, some may see hiring a lawyer as inefficient. As one person surveyed said, “I’d much rather put that money toward supporting children than trying to fight them.”⁸ Unfortunately, some people don’t realize that hiring a lawyer can actually put parents in the best position to support their children. A lawyer has the benefit of not being emotionally linked to a case and can understand when a deal benefits their client and ultimately the child.

Financial constraints are inevitably the most common challenge SRLs face. As a result, many rationalize the decision to forgo hiring a lawyer in divorce or child custody proceedings—an understandable choice that nonetheless reflects an unfortunate reality about the accessibility of our court system. Self-represented litigants often expect the process to be straightforward, yet in practice it’s anything but.

The problems for self-represented litigation in Domestic Relations

Going to court without a lawyer is a risky and arduous endeavor, as even minor procedural missteps or misunderstandings of legal terminology can significantly harm a case’s outcome. Yet the challenges are especially acute in family court. First, SRLs need to fill out and submit the necessary paperwork. During my prove-up hearings, it’s not uncommon for a self-represented petitioner to either mishandle service of process—for example, by failing to properly notify the other party or not submitting proof to the court—or give incomplete, vague, or poorly considered answers when asked about the respondent. They often submit all necessary documents except the most important one, the proposed judgment, which is the form that actually divorces them. Unfortunately, I have to turn them away and reschedule them for a later date. This is understandably frustrating for those who took time off work or had a long commute to the Daley Center. In contested divorce hearings, self-represented parties may also ask the court to review a specific issue but fail to submit the appropriate motion. Additionally, their inability to effectively convey an argument in court will only work against them. During a hearing, for example, SRLs might communicate a position that could be misinterpreted by opposing counsel or the court, often leading to unnecessary and time-consuming clarification. These mistakes expose the party to litigative risk, potentially leading to unnecessary court costs or unfavorable decisions.

Second, self-represented litigants in Domestic Relations are personally attached to the outcome, thus clouding their judgment. In child custody cases, where the goal is getting a court-ordered division of parental rights and duties swiftly and “with minimal amounts of acrimony and hostility . . .”,⁹ hurt and embittered parties may detrimentally prolong the litigation process. Representing themselves also leads to a taxing emotional experience when, in addition to preparing their case, they also need to continue their familial and professional obligations. Attorneys can lessen this pressure and serve as a buffer, allowing the parties time and space to deal with the trauma from separation while not also being forced to legally represent themselves.

Finally, the court is in a difficult position when comparing a self-represented litigant to a party represented by counsel. Under the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct judges “shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to the law.”¹⁰ Additionally, Illinois case law provides that SRLs cannot be held to a lower standard¹¹ and are expected to comply with the same rules of procedure as an attorney.¹² It is incredibly hard, if not impossible, for an SRL to operate like a practicing attorney, especially when some of the lawyers have decades of family law experience.

These issues aren’t the only ones self-represented litigation poses in Domestic Relations, but their prevalence makes my job and theirs difficult. I tell SRLs that choosing to represent yourself is like taking out your own appendix—it’s painful and arduous. Many would likely agree and prefer legal representation if given the opportunity. Fortunately, the Illinois Supreme Court and the Circuit Court of Cook County recognize this pressing issue and have provided resources to help SRLs, but more needs to be done.

Current Illinois and Cook County policy on self-represented litigants

Several initiatives in Illinois and Cook County have made the courts more friendly to SRLs. First, court adjacent resources provide self-represented parties with the necessary paperwork and legal information required to successfully navigate the court system. The Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Access to Justice has approved standardized forms SRLs can use on a range of family law issues, such as changing child support, requesting fee waivers, or filing an order of protection.¹³ All Illinois courts must accept these forms.¹⁴

The Commission also supports Illinois JusticeCorps, an AmeriCorps program where volunteers are trained to give legal information and procedural guidance along with connecting them to legal aid groups.¹⁵ Due to the Trump administration’s dismantling of AmeriCorps, however, the program is currently in flux.¹⁶

During my Zoom hearings I also refer self-represented parties to three different “low bono” organizations that represent litigants on a sliding scale, in proportion to how much they earn: Chicago Advocate Legal, the Justice Entrepreneurs Project, and the Greater Chicago Legal Clinic. All three groups have been reliable partners in providing quality legal services at more affordable rates to those who need it. While these initiatives represent progress, self-represented parties may still struggle to locate the necessary resources, and even when they do, there’s no assurance they’ll be able to use them effectively. The legal aid groups only have so much capacity to take in clients too.

In addition to providing court-related resources, staff services have expanded in Domestic Relations to deal with the case volume. The court created the Hearing Officer Program in 2017 to employ administrative law judges who provide guidance to those who cannot afford a lawyer.¹⁷ Available at the Daley Center, and all suburban districts, Hearing Officers mostly settle financial issues and specify the language in proposed judgments. They also assist in marriage dissolution.¹⁸ By addressing these topics, Hearing Officers offer guidance by explaining procedural rules, allowing time to resolve simple logistical problems, and performing calculations.¹⁹ Though helpful, the program is only available for certain types of cases. Situations requiring additional fact finding, such as orders of protection, cannot be brought before Hearing Officers.²⁰

Another resource available for SRLs falls outside the adversarial system through a no-cost mediation service. Located across the street from the Daley Center, Family Court Services offers mediation to all parent litigants involved in disagreements such as parenting time for minor children.²¹ The Illinois Supreme Court has mandated parties involved in child-related disputes to attend mediation.²²  Once the court orders it, parents have the opportunity to discuss their children’s future after separation with the help of a neutral third party. The goal is for the parents, not the judge, to make decisions about their children’s well-being. The program is valuable and can be well used, but unfortunately mediation can fail. Parents struggle to put their feelings aside and find a resolution, leading them back to my courtroom.

Illinois and Cook County have made Domestic Relations more accessible for self-represented parties, but the problem remains: SRLs, especially those with limited financial resources, struggle to navigate the court system. Juggling your own legal representation on top of your actual job and parenting responsibilities is too much to ask. The clearest solution is also the boldest: provide indigent SRLs with publicly funded attorneys, just as we do in criminal court.

---

Judge James A. Shapiro is a Circuit Judge with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Domestic Relations Division.

James J. Herdegen is a second year law student at University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Illinois, and a Member of Illinois Law Review.

---

1. Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts, “An Evaluation of the Hearing Officer Program in the Domestic Relations Division of the Cook County Circuit Court,” August 2021.
2. Id.
3. Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, “Cases without Counsel: Research on Experiences of Self-Representation in U.S. Family Court,” May 2016, page 12.
4. Id. at 13.
5. Chicago Appleseed: Center for Fair Courts, “Child Support,” https://www.chicagoappleseed.org/family-law/child-support/.
6. American Council on Aging, “2025 Federal Poverty Levels/Guidelines & How They Determine Medicaid Eligibility” (Jan. 17, 2025), https://www.medicaidplanningassistance.org/federal-poverty-guidelines/.
7. Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, “Cases without Counsel: Research on Experiences of Self-Representation in U.S. Family Court,” May 2016, page 13.
8. Id. at 15.
9. Rebecca Aviel, Why Civil Gideon Won't Fix Family Law, 122 Yale L.J. 2106, 2116 (2001).
10. Model Code of Judicial Conduct 2.6 (2020).
11. Jones v. Lopez, No. 1-19-1892, 2022 IL App (1st) 191892 at ¶ 12 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
12. Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher, 197 Ill. 2d 514, 528 (2001).
13. Illinois Courts, “Approved Statewide Standardized Forms,” https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/documents-and-forms/approved-forms/.
14. Id.
15. Illinois Bar Foundation, “Illinois JusticeCorps,” https://illinoisbarfoundation.org/programs/illinois-justicecorps/.
16. WGLT, “Legal assistance program plots its next move after Illinois wins injunction in AmeriCorps case,” https://www.wglt.org/local-news/2025-06-09/legal-assistance-program-plots-its-next-move-after-illinois-wins-injunction-in-americorps-case.
17. Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts, “An Evaluation of the Hearing Officer Program in the Domestic Relations Division of the Cook County Circuit Court,” August 2021, page 1.
18. Id. at 5.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Circuit Court of Cook County, https://www.cookcountycourt.org/department/family-court-services/mediation (last visited Aug. 4, 2025).
22. Rule 905, Mediation, ¶ a-b (2025).