The U.S. Legal System ill Serves Most Americans

When the doors of the U.S. court system are closed, there is little recourse for victims of civil 'crimes' like employment discrimination, consumer fraud, unfair eviction, etc.

When I hear Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy discuss the abysmal state of U.S. health care, my thoughts turn to the American legal system.

It is arguably worse.

Americans may get appalling health care, but at least most Americans can get health care. Not so for legal services, especially with respect to civil disputes involving workplace discrimination, consumer affairs, housing, etc.

The vast majority of Americans cannot afford to hire an attorney to handle a civil case, and the system is engineered - by design or default - to make it difficult to represent oneself. The doors of U.S. courts are effectively closed to most Americans, while it serves as the handmaiden of corporate America.

In the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index, the U.S. was ranked 26th out of 142 countries and jurisdictions in 2023. This places it below the majority of other high-income countries

Age Discrimination

For example, what if you were a victim of age discrimination. You would quickly discover that most attorneys will not represent you unless you can pay a retainer of thousands of dollars and a hefty per fee of more than $200 per hour.

Older workers are second-class citizens under the law.

Unlike Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, religion, color and national origin, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 does not provide for attorney fees. So victims must front myriad costs associated within the filing of any lawsuit, including serving notice on defendants, conducting a deposition, hiring experts (i.e. statistician), etc.

Few Americans can afford legal expenses, and especially those who are contemplating retirement.

EEOC

Workers can file a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that exists to enforce federal civil rights laws. But they shouldn’t get their hopes up.

In 2024, the EEOC received 88,531 new charges of discrimination, a 9.2% increase from 2023. The EEOC filed 111 employment discrimination lawsuits in 2024, including 76 lawsuits seeking relief for individuals, 22 lawsuits with multiple victims, and 13 lawsuits alleging systemic discrimination.

The EEOC’s ‘prosecution’ rate in 2024 was a fraction of one percent, or 0.13%.

For most Americans, laws that prohibit employment discrimination, unfair evictions / foreclosures, invasive debt collection, consumer fraud, and predatory business practices are essentially meaningless because they don’t have the resources to fight.

A 2024 survey last year by The Harris Poll found that 56% of Americans mistakenly think they are entitled to free legal representation in civil cases if they can’t afford an attorney and 18% are not sure. When they learn the awful truth, most just give up.

The Harris poll found that almost one of three Americans who were threatened with eviction or foreclosure in the prior three years didn’t seek legal help. Almost 35% said they reached out for legal help but didn’t receive it.

The situation is only marginally better for poor people who qualify for legal aid, which is variable depending upon demand and resource availability.

A 2022 report by the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) found that 92% of low-income Americans with civil legal problems receive inadequate or no legal help. According to the report, more than 70% of low-income households face at least one civil legal issue annually, including evictions, domestic violence, or debt collection.

Self-Represent?

Occasionally, a particularly determined individual will try to prosecute their own case. This rarely goes well.

For one thing, separate sets of state and federal court rules govern litigation in every state, representing a minefield for actual attorneys, let alone non-attorneys. There is little to no help for pro se plaintiffs in federal courts. One wrong move can result in a quick dismissal of even the most obvious and meritorious case.

From 1998 to 2017, pro se plaintiffs won approximately 3% of final judgments in U.S. District Courts.

When both parties were represented, win rates for plaintiffs and defendants were roughly equal, around 50%.

Additionally, many judges have no patience for pro-se or self-represented plaintiffs, feeling that they are wasting their precious time, which would be better served presiding over never ending litigation by corporations.

While there is no data specific to age discrimination, the win rate for pro-se plaintiffs is almost certainly much, much lower than for other discrimination victims.

Because they are exempt from retirement, the average age of a federal judge in 2025 was about 69 years old. Research shows one in three older adults harbor internalized ageism, or feel that older adults are less competent and valuable. Many federal judges not only don’t empathize with age discrimination victims, but implicitly dislike them.

Fossilized Courts / Big Law Firms

There appears to be an almost complete lack of leadership in the U.S. Court system, which is decentralized into 12 regional courts that act like fiefdoms to serve themselves and corporate interests. There are few, if any, progressive thinkers, working to make the system better for all Americans.

A former federal circuit judge in Chicago, Richard Posner of Chicago, founded the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s in 2017 after complaining about the treatment of pro se plaintiffs. However, it dissolved in 2019 due to overwhelming demand.

Judge Posner recently won a lawsuit filed by a pro se litigant, Brian Vukadinovich, a retired teacher who represented himself. (The irony?) Vukadinovich sought $170,000 for a year and half of work as the executive director of the center. In a statement, Vukadinovich called the judgment that caused his loss “corrupt and rotten to the core.”

Another reason the system works so poorly for Americans is that the legal practice in every state is regulated by a state bar association, under the authority of the state’s highest court. The association is often governed by boards or councils populated by lawyers from big law firms in the state.

Big firms jealously guard their territory and work feverishly to quash both out-of-state competition and innovation in the delivery of legal services that might cut into their bottom line. They have a large megaphone because they contribute to the election of state judges who might, in other circumstances, find the bar’s self-serving actions to be questionable.

Over the years, many have argued that the anti-competitive actions of state bar associations is ILLEGAL.

The Sherman Act of 1890, the cornerstone of antitrust litigation, prohibits conspiracies to restrain trade or commerce. Other federal laws prohibit anticompetitive conduct with respect to mergers that lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

But neither Democratic nor Republican politicians, who also depend on campaign contributions from rich lawyers, have stepped up to prosecute these cases.

Community Service Workers

There are some changes afoot on the state level, though the impact is uncertain.

High courts in Alaska (2019 )and Arizona (2024) have approved programs to allow non-lawyers to provide limited legal assistance to people who are above legal aid’s 125% poverty level threshold.

There is reason for concern that these programs could be a cash cow for attorneys, who can expand their paying customer base by delegating work they formerly were responsible for to staff members who may be unqualified.

The program likely will allow attorneys to make more money by delegating legal work to staff who have no formal legal training. Is this a benefit to underserved Americans?

Under the Legal Services Authorized Community Justice Worker program, "community justice workers" can provide legal advice, document preparation, negotiation and administrative representation under the training and supervision of licensed attorneys. They can assist only with civil matters such as consumer issues, housing, debt relief, public benefits and unemployment law.

So instead of attorneys working on behalf of Americans, they will be “supervising” non attorneys. If the past is any indication, there is reasons to be cynical.

When Kennedy talks about the deplorable downturn in our nation’s health in recent decades due to blatant corruption in Washington, D.C., we might also consider the harmful impact that most Americans experience when they are victims of civil “crimes.”

And consider the implications of a legal system that permits big law firms and corporations to limit redress for things like illegal discrimination, unfair eviction, being cheated by insurance companies, etc. etc.