TISCO WORKING PAPER SERIES ON CIVIL LAW AND
CONFLICT RESOLUTION SYSTEMS
Multiple Justicable Problems in Bulgaria
Martin Gramatikov1
Tilburg University, Tilburg Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies of Civil Law and Conflict
Resolution Systems (TISCO)
TISCO Working Paper Series on Civil Law and
Conflict Resolution Systems
No. 08/2008
November 2008, Version: 1.0
&
Tilburg University Legal Studies Working Paper No. 16/2008
1
The author is thankful for their help and support to Zaza Namoradze, Anna Ogorodova and Nadejda
Hriptievschi from the Justice Initiative, Ivanka Ivanova from the Open Society – Sofia, Prof. Krasimira Sredkova
and Dr. Kristian Takov from the Law Faculty, University of Sofia, Dr. Kaloyan Haralmpiev and Dr. Venelin
Stoychev from the Department of Sociology, University of Sofia, Yonko Grozev, attorney-at-law and Dragomir
Yordanov, from the National Institute for Justice.
1
Table of Contents:
Abstract
The paper reports results from research of justiciable events in Bulgaria, carried out in 20072.
Prevalence of legal problems and legal needs is measured through the proxy concept of
justiciable events. Despite the expanding legal infrastructure which assumes linear increase of
legal needs, the public policies in Bulgaria are negligent to the unmet legal needs in the civil
and administrative legal fields. The study finds that 45.31% of the respondents in the sample
have experienced one or more serious and difficult to resolve problems with potential legal
solutions. Consumer related issues are the most frequently occurring problem category,
followed by problems with the neighbors. 18.5% of the respondents who had one problem
reported experience with two or more problems. The analysis shows that experiencing a
justiciable problem has an additive effect on the probability that additional justiciable
problems will be reported by the respondent. Occurrence of multiple legal problems is
strongly correlated with criminal victimization rate and the level of distrust in the justice
system.
1. Legal needs and legal problems in transitional society
Legal needs and legal problems3 are difficult to be measured directly. Many legal needs and
problems remain latent and never progress to stages where the investigators could observe,
count and classify them. Studies of court files, public registers, legal providers’ records and
the like could only indicate the tip of the pyramid but data from similar sources bear limited
potential if one wants to make inferences regarding the base of the pyramid of legal needs or
the slope of its sides. Many problems that could be solved with legal means are settled in the
course of negotiation or some other form of alternative dispute resolution. Moreover,
subjective classification of a problem as legal largely depends on the socio-demographic
characteristics of the particular respondent as well as on a host of contextual factors. Popular
approach to measure the existing legal needs and legal problems is to use the notion of
justiciable event as proxy indicator for existing legal needs. According to the widely cited
definition justiciable events are “...happenings and circumstances that “raise [civil] legal
issues,” whether or not people “recognize them as being ‘legal’” and whether or not they
respond to the event by using some part of the civil justice system”4. Justiciable events are
social events which could be resolved with legal means but there could also exist alternative
strategies for their resolution. Unlike some other approaches for measuring the legal needs,
the justiciable events methodology bestows the researcher the responsibility to decide which
problems could and should be classified as legal. The Achilles’ heel of the approach is that the
respondents must make the significant judgment of how trivial a particular problem is. For
some categories it could be obvious that an event is non-trivial but for others this decision
leaves room for subjective interpretation and is highly dependent on the particular context.
The research was funded by the Open Society Institute – Sofia and the Justice Initiative - Budapest
For analytical distinction between legal needs and legal problems see JON T. JOHNSEN, Legal Needs Studies in a
Market Context, in The Transformation of Legal Aid, (Francis Reagan, et al. eds., 1999). p. 11
4
HAZEL GENN, Paths to Justice. What people do and think about going to law? (Hart Publishing. 1999).p. 12
2
3
2
Early efforts to analyze the existing legal needs could be traced back to 1977 when Barbara
Currant published the results from study on the legal needs in the US with main emphasize on
the questions of why and when people use advice from lawyers5. In the late 1970s Herbert
Kritzer, Richard Miller, William Felstiner67 and their team conducted sizeable empirical
research project called The Civil Litigation Research Project (CLRP). Investigating the
processing of civil legal disputes, the researchers in CLRP conducted interviews with various
samples of respondents. Later in the 90s the American Bar Association conducted research on
unmet legal needs8.
In the past decade many research projects used the concept of justiciable events or similar
constructs in order to bring more information on the distribution of legal needs and problems
in the society and the strategies for solving these problems. Research on justiciable events has
been conducted in a couple of jurisdictions9. Results from these investigations are not directly
comparable for a number of reasons. Some surveys use samples drawn from the general
population while in others the sample framework is stratified or the units of analysis are
households. Data collection methods vary from personal interviews to telephone and e-mail
based interviews. Types, number and classification of justiciable events varies along the
specifics of the jurisdiction where the research is conducted. Last but not least, different
factors such as type of legal system, level of economic development, social and legal culture
affect to a large extent the findings of the justiciable events studies.
To the best of my knowledge, the justiciable events methodology has not been used for
investigation of legal needs and legal problems in countries from Central and Eastern Europe.
In fact, with the exception of Michelson’s study in China10, the methodology has not been
implemented in developing countries or in countries often defined as transition economies.
Particular characteristic of the transitioning countries are the political efforts to establish legal
framework which aims to strengthen and guarantee the rule of law, human rights, private
ownership and economic development11. The structure and prevalence of legal problems and
legal needs could be hypothesizing to be strongly related to the economic and legal dynamics.
Former socialist transitional countries witness significant amount of similarities in the switch
between pre and post transitional legal systems. During the totalitarian regime the civil and
commercial law was largely underdeveloped due to the limited forms of property and business
law rights. The structure of the planned economy and the role of the state in the social life
5
BARBARA A. CURRAN, The Legal Needs of the Public: The Final Report of A National Survey (American Bar
Foundation. 1977).
6
HERBERT M. KRITZER, et al., Studying Disputes by Survey, 25 American Behavioral Scientist, (1981).
7
DAVID M. TRUBEK, et al., THE COSTS OF ORDINARY LITIGATION, 31 UCLA L. Rev., (1983).
8
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Comprehensive Legal Needs Study. pt. (1994).
9
CHRISTINE COUMARELOS, et al., Justice made to measure : NSW legal needs survey in disadvantaged areas
(LAW AND JUSTICE FOUNDATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES. 2006);AB CURRIE, The Legal Problems of
Everyday Life (2007);AB CURRIE, A National Survey of the Civil Justice Problems of Low and Moderate
Income Canadians, 13 Int'l J. Legal Prof., (2006). GENN;HAZEL GENN & ALAN PATERSON, Paths to Justice
Scotland. What People in Scotland Do and Think About Going to Law (Hart Publishing. 2001). JAMES LAW, et
al., Community Legal Service: Assessing Need for Legal Advice in Scotland (Scottish Executive Social
Research ed., 2004). BEN C. J. VAN VELTHOVEN & MARIJKE TER VOERT, Paths to Justice in the Netherlands.
Looking for signs of social exclusion. pt. 28 (2004);P ASCOE PLEASENCE, et al., Causes of action: First Findings
of the LSRC Periodic Survey, 30 J. Law Soc., (2003).
10
ETAN MICHELSON, Climbing the Dispute Pagoda: Grievances and Appeals to the Official Justice System in
Rural China, 72 Am.Sociolog.Rev., (2007). However, Michelson uses the sociological notion of grievance to
study the strategies for resolution of legal problems.
11
OLEH HAVRYLYSHYN & WOLF THOMAS, Determinants of Growth in Transition Countries, 36 Finance &
Development Magazine, (1999).
3
made many types of legal conflicts infeasible. At the same time the notion of civil dispute had
a negative connotation and the totalitarian state took different measures to prevent when
possible and conceal when needed such conflicts12. The infrastructure of legal norms and
institutions was generally in balance with the limited amount of civil conflicts and had the
capacity for adjudication. With the collapse of the communism in 1989 the social fundaments
of the civil justice system were radically altered. For instance, in Bulgaria with the enactment
of the Constitution from 1991 the private property was emancipated to the level of protection
of the public property. Liberalization of the private ownership, series of denationalizations of
land and real estate as well as the expansion of bank credit generated environment for
transactions which were unknown before 1989. Laws and regulations proclaimed many rights
and civil liberties that were not part of the legal system. Consumer protection policy,
antidiscrimination, commercial law, protection against domestic violence are only a few of
the many legal domains that did not exist in an economy in which virtually all vendors and
providers were state owned. After 1990s the public sector shrunk to regulatory and executive
agencies and its role was taken over by local and foreign businesses. Thus the market
economy, the integration with international and supranational organizations resulted in
escalation of the civil disputes. At the same time the legal institutions were not able to adjust
to the changing social, political and economic environment.
Other factors that affected the raise of civil legal needs and legal problems could be sought in
the crime rates and structure of crime. These changed dramatically since 1989 and together
with corruption and unemployment are consistently found in public polls to be the three most
pressing social problems. Demographic, social and economic trends are also contributing to
the stratification of the society and exclusion of large groups of vulnerable minorities.
Transition from planned to market economy severely impacted large groups such as the Roma
ethnic minority. Roma communities in most Central and Eastern European countries are
plagued by extreme poverty, unemployment, under education and health problems. Other
social groups that saw dramatic decrease in their socio-economic status are retired people,
inhabitants of isolated villages, single parents etc.
Above is just a brief sketch of the general factors which are assumed to contribute to
increased occurrence at individual level of serious problems that could have legal solution.
The inability of the institutions to cope with this demand has inevitably let to disbelief in the
efficiency of the justice system and in particular the civil justice system. As the results of the
current survey show most people in Bulgaria believe that only those who have receive justice,
while those who do not have sufficient resources have to rely on alternative mechanisms to
solve their problems. In fact, most often the problems are not solved at all but the parties
swallow the losses and damages.
How the increased volume of legal transactions and related rights relates to the stratification
of the Bulgarian society? One could expect that the interaction between these two complex
construct will create a significant amount of unmet legal needs. Previous research suggests
that in criminal proceedings some 35% of the defendants in the pre-trial phase and 25% of the
defendants in the court of first instance were not represented by attorney13. IN this previous
research interviews with a sample of inmates (n=694) revealed that about 16% of the
interviewed were not represented by professional lawyer at any stage of the criminal
procedure.
12
See MAURO CAPPELETTI & BRYANT GARTH, Access to Justice: The Newest Wave in the Worldwide Movement
to Make Rights Effective, 27 Buffalo Law Review, (1978).
13
MARTIN GRAMATIKOV, Study on Free Legal Aid in Criminal Cases in Bulgaria, 2004. pt. 37 (2004).
4
Traditionally the focus of Bulgarian human rights advocates and researchers is
overwhelmingly oriented towards setting up schemes for delivery of legal aid in criminal
cases. Until 1 of January 2006 when the Legal Aid Act14 entered into force a person with a
civil problem had two limited opportunities to obtain free legal advice or representation. The
Bar Act 200415 provides in Art. 35 par. 1 that attorneys could provide on their own discretion
pro bono legal aid to individuals who are economically deprived or have recognized rights to
receive alimony or child support. In practice this legal norms is rarely implemented. More
popular is the practice according to which attorneys deliver legal advice to the members of
their informal social network – relatives, friends, neighbors etc. Apparently, this form of
bridging legal needs has insignificant social potential and largely excludes the unprivileged
groups of the society.
The repealed Civil Procedure Code16 which was in force before 2006 provided that the court
should assign ex officio counsel of a party who has conflict of interests with their legal
guardian (i.e. minors and mentally retarded). Ex officio counsels were also appointed to
defendants who have unknown addressed and cannot be summoned. These rules for
appointment of ex officio counsel in a limited category of cases were preserved in the new
Civil Procedure Code17.
Art. 3 of the Legal Aid Act state that the aim of the law is to guarantee equal access to justice
through delivery of effective legal aid. The scope of the legal aid is defined in Art. 1 – all
procedural phases of civil, criminal and administrative cases. In fact, the scope of the Legal
Aid Act is even broader – in Art. 21 Par. 1 has been regulated the right to primary legal aid,
consisting of legal advice and preparation of documents before a law suit is instigated.
Acknowledging the importance that a civil legal dispute might have on the parties the Legal
Aid Act increased the scope of legal aid to indigenous parties in civil cases. Both the plaintiff
and defendant are entitled to request appointment of counsel. This means that after 2006 the
parties in civil and administrative procedures had two procedural devices for requesting free
legal aid – the procedural clause18 and the indigenous clause. The procedural grounds for
appointment of ex officio counsel are constant before and after the Legal Aid Act entered into
force. Therefore one should expect increase of legal aid due to the introduction of the
indigence clause. Official statistics, however, show that this is not the case. In 2004 ex officio
counsels have been appointed in 4 881 civil and administrative cases19. According to the
annual report of the Legal Aid Board for 2007 legal aid was delivered in 3953 civil and 31
administrative cases20. Instead of increase, a decrease of more than 18% is observed, in spite
of the introduction of the indigence clause. Another good illustration of the effectiveness of
the state funded system of legal aid in civil and administrative cases is the fact that for 2007
only 14 requests for primary legal aid were considered.
14
Zakon za Pravnata Pomosht [Legal Aid Act] 2006, State Gazette, N. 79, 4/10/2005
Zakon za advokaturata [Bar Act] 2004, State Gazette, N. 55 25/06/1974
16
Civil Procedure Code [Grajdansko Procesualen Kodeks] 1952, State Gazette, N. 12 8/02/1954
17
Civil Procedure Code [Grajdansko Procesualen Kodeks] 2007, State Gazette, N. 59 20/07/2007, in force from
1/03/2008.
18
By the procedural clause I mean that the court in civil cases has to appoint an ex officio counsel to a) the party
who is unable to represent itself and there is a conflict of interest with its legal guardian; b) parties announced
officially as missing; c) defendants with unknown address – Art. 29, Par. 1CPC
19
Data from the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice
20
Annual Report of the Legal Aid Board for 2007 (in Bulgarian), retrieved 28/04/08 from
http://www.nbpp.government.bg/files/File/OD2007Final-1.pdf
15
5
It is very likely that if a person experiences difficult to solve problem which could be solved
with the means of the civil justice the mechanisms of pro bono and state funded legal aid will
not offer options for receiving free legal advice and representation. Where else the people
could find out the legal dimensions of their problems? As a matter of fact there is no publicly
funded provider of holistic legal services in Bulgaria. Interesting examples of such services
were the so called “social-legal” offices that existed till 2003 in certain medical facilities such
as maternity hospitals, rehabs and psychiatric hospitals. A team of lawyer and a social worker
were assigned to provide advice to people who face problems or life events that are
reasonably expected to be connected with other legal problems. In the late 1990s due to
financial constraints these “social-legal” offices are largely formal and in 2003 are
discontinued through revocation of the bylaw from 1987 with which these were established.
Adoption is another example of delivery of free legal advice and representation. According to
the Family Code21 the adoption procedure ends with a court procedure in the Regional court
in which the adoptive parents are constituted as plaintiffs and the biological parents are
defendants. In such cases a lawyer of the social services is in effect representing the interests
of the adoptive parents since the same agency has selected them. However, the biological
parent/s would not be able to gain access to this form of legal aid.
There are several other instances in which potentially a person could receive legal advice and
representation for free in case a justiciable problem is present. Providers could be public
authorities, trade unions and other professional associations and not-for-profit organizations.
However, these institutional mechanisms for delivery of free legal aid are highly specific and
limited with regard to the scope of legal problems and eligible users. As the results from the
study will demonstrate, very rarely the sampled individuals who report at least one justiciable
problem for the last 3.5 years used these options as part of the strategy to resolve the problem.
2. Methodology
The research of justiciable events in Bulgaria follows a methodology adopted by other
justiciable events research projects22. In order to adjust the categories of justiciable problems
to the problems that are actually experienced by the people in Bulgaria two focus groups23
were carried out. The results were used to clarify the concept of justiciable event and its
legalistic, linguistic and cultural dimensions. Special attention was paid to careful wording of
the test for triviality of the problem. After a questionnaire24 was developed a pre-testing with
small number of respondents was carried out for improving its internal validity. Actual data
collection was carried in June and July of 2007 by GfK Bulgaria, member of the GfK Group.
Particularly challenging at methodological level was the operationalization of the civil justice
domain and thereof the civil justice problems. As a member of the civil law family, the
21
Family Code [Semeen Kodeks] 1985, State Gazette, N. 41 28/05/1985
GENN & PATERSON, Paths to Justice Scotland. What People in Scotland Do and Think About Going to
Law;PASCOE PLEASENCE, et al., Causes of Action: Civil Law and Social Justice (Stationery Office. 2004).
23
In first focus group were interviewed Roma living in small city of approximately 5 000. The Roma people in
Bulgaria are poorer and less educated than the other ethnic groups. For the second focus group were invited
adults, living in Sofia, which is the country’s capital as well as its most prosperous economy.
24
Available at http://www.gramatikov.com/research/
22
6
Bulgarian jurisprudence and doctrine recognize sharp distinction between private (civil) and
public (administrative) problems. Strictly speaking the categories of denied public services or
social benefits have to be defined as administrative problems. However, there are arguments
for the inclusion of both civil and administrative problems in the list of justiciable events.
First, the Legal Aid Act does not differentiate between legal aid in civil and administrative
cases. Second, for the sake of comparability of the results with findings from other studies,
both problems pertaining to the civil and administrative domains were framed as justiciable
events.
The population of interest was defined as all adults (above 18) living in Bulgaria. Stratified
random sample of households was drawn in three steps. First, two level stratification was
carried out in order to ensure that the sample correctly reflects the population parameters of
the 28 administrative regions in Bulgaria. At the second level of stratification cities and
villages of different sizes were randomly selected. In each location a nest was selected and for
each nest a starting address (street and address number) together with a progression step was
chosen. Third, in each household the interviewers looked for an adult who was eligible to
participate in the survey. If there were more than one eligible adults, living in the same
household, the one with the most recent date of birth was invited to take part in the interview.
In case she had not been present at the moment, the interviewer recorded the name and
address and made two other follow up attempts. If all three attempts are unsuccessful the
interviewer moved to the next step (address).
First a screening card was administered to the respondents. The main purpose of the screening
interview was to screen the respondents who have had one or more justiciable problem for the
last 3.5 years (for convenience the interviewers asked for problems that emerged since 1 of
January 2004 to the moment of the interview). In case the respondent did not report a
justiciable event, the interviewer collected the demographics data and stopped the interview.
If one or more problems were reported the interview progressed to the main interview which
focuses on the strategies for resolution of one of the reported problems. The mean time for the
main interviews was 30 minutes (st. deviation = 13 minutes).
Response rate
In total 2730 adults were interviewed in order to achieve the target of 1200 effective
interviews with people who had experienced one or more justiciable events in the last 3,5
years. One of the pitfalls of face-to-face interviews is the relatively low response rate.
Research on problems and particularly on legal problems is even more challenging due to the
expected reluctance of respondents to discuss their problems with strangers.
In total 5308 addresses were visited in order to achieve 2730 effective interviews, hence the
response rate was 51,43%. In 14% of the contacted households the interviewers were refused
to make interview. Since we do not know the demographics of those who did not want to be
interviewed we can not make reliable inferences whether there is a trend in the response rate
by demographic factors.
Demographics of the sample
7
Mean age of the respondents in the sample is 51 years25. The sample is heavily skewed
towards women – 63.1%. According to the last census from 2001 the proportion of women in
the population is 51.29%26. This significant difference between the population and the sample
could be result of patterns of the interviewing process such as time of the interviews. 64% of
the respondents are married, 16.5% are widowed, 12.1% are not married and 7.3% are
divorced. Almost one third (32.3%) of the interviewed live in family of two, 22% in family of
three, 18.2 in family of four and 14.9% are alone in their household. Most of the respondents
in the sample report to have completed technical high school (29.8%), followed by these with
high school (22.1%), primary education (21.2%) and academic degree (20.6%). Only 1.2% of
the respondents are without any education. The 2001 census does not provide information on
the literacy of the population but it is very unlikely that the true proportion of the illiteracy is
as low as 1.2%. It could be hypothesized that the results of the study largely underestimate the
problems of the most uneducated and probably excluded parts of the Bulgarian society. Hence
the data in the sample provides very conservative estimate of the justiciable problems that are
occurring in the Bulgarian society.
Most of the respondents are in full time employment (43.9%), followed by a significant group
of retired people (37.5%). 11% of the sample are unemployed and 2.9% are students.
Overwhelming majority of the respondents live in owned house (57.2%) or apartment
(34.2%). Only a small group of 3.5% (n=95) live in rented accommodation.
3. Frequency and distribution of justiciable problems
Slightly less than half of the respondents in the sample report experience with at least one
justiciable event in the previous 3.5 years. 46.3% (n=1264) of the respondents recalled facing
serious to resolve problem which has legal solutions among the other possible responses.
Small proportion (5%; n=63) of the respondents did not find their problem in the predefined
categories and described verbatim their experiences to the interviewers. Almost half (n=24) of
these cases refer to petty larceny which neither the respondent nor the interviewer classified
as criminal misdemeanors. Due to the reluctance of police officers and prosecutors to deal
with small value larceny and burglary this tiny proportion of the respondents sees these
problems as private matters and reported them as justiciable events. This is interesting finding
bearing in mind that the interviewers were trained to distinguish civil from criminal legal
problems. The diffusive boundaries between civil and criminal justice was made even more
explicit in a focus group interview with Roma people from a small village with population of
about 3500 inhabitants. Respondents from this group largely agreed that certain petty crimes
were not serious enough to be reported to the police. Often the police officers would deem
such problems as rather civil nuisances then criminal matters. Because of the lack of access to
both the criminal and civil justice systems, the participants believed that such problems must
be resolved privately, most often with the arguments of force.
All problems that were not initially categorized were reviewed and manually assigned to the
appropriate category of legal problems. I decided to exclude the reported petty burglary and
fraud because there was no sufficient information to indicate whether the particular problem
can be resolved with the means of the civil justice. After recoding the sample consists of 1237
cases of justiciable problems. A recalculation of the proportion of people who reported a
25
Standard deviation =16.83 years, standard error of the mean=.32
See the univariate distributions provided by the Bulgarian National Statistical Institute at
http://www.nsi.bg/Census/Census.htm
26
8
justiciable problem shows that 45.31% of the respondents report one or more legal problems
which were are broadly referred to as civil legal problems.
Consumer problems are the clear most frequently experienced legal problems with almost one
in four respondents reporting serious issue related to buying goods or services (Figure 1).
Within the category of consumer problems, the most frequent reported problem is buying
faulty goods or services (41.5% from all consumer related problems, n=114), followed by
incorrect billing by monopolistic providers of utility services (33.8%, n=93) and problems
with craftsmen (9.1%, n=25). Consumer related problems are frequently reported as the most
frequent legal need in surveys that employ the methodology of justiciable events27. Above in
the paper were outlined specifics of the developments of the Bulgarian society and legal
system that could explain this finding. Despite some 17 years after the fall of the totalitarian
regime and the abandonment of the planned economy, the Bulgarian society is still learning
the rules of the free market economy. The consumer protection policy is a relatively new form
of public policy which exists predominantly at normative level. Its institutional and most
importantly cultural fundaments are still in their formative stage. Jurisdiction over legal
problems ensuing from consumption of goods and services is vaguely distributed among
specialized administrative agency (Commission for Consumers’ Protection28) and the courts
of law. The lack of coherent and viable public policy for protection of the consumers leaves
the dispute resolution to the self-binding policies of the vendors and suppliers as well as to the
consumers’ activism.
Figure 1: Frequency distribution of first justiciable problems
Neighborhood problems are the second most frequently occurring civil legal problem. Within
the category the most often problems are: loud noise coming systemically from neighbors
27
CURRIE, The Legal Problems of Everyday Life. PLEASENCE, et al., Causes of Action: Civil Law and Social
Justice. VAN VELTHOVEN & TER VOERT. pt.
28
See http://www.cpc.bg
9
(38.3% within all neighbors’ problems, n=70), damage to property (27.9, n=51) and
threatening and abusive language (20.2). Different types of legal problems with neighbors are
not equally distributed among the four types of residences that were used to split the
demographic variable Residence29. After weighting the sample for the actual proportions of
villages, small cities, regional centers and the capital in the country population it is found that
loud noise is pressing problem for the respondents from the capital city of Sofia and not so
bothering for the residents of villages. Reversely, damage to property carried out by neighbors
is more serious of a problem for the villagers than for the residents of the biggest city in
Bulgaria. These dynamics are eloquent example of the interactions between propensities of
justiciable problems and socio-demographic factors. Similar trends could be found in many
other of the legal problems and the aggregated categories.
Geographical distance of the respondent from the nearest county and district court is related to
the probability that a person will report experience with justifiable events 30. Those who report
at least one problem live on average 6.63 kilometers away from the nearest county court
whereas for those who did not report problem the mean distance is 7.6231. Similar is the
relationship between prevalence of problems and district courts – respondents with problems
live on average 19.61 km. from the district court as compared with 22.23 km. for those who
did not report a justiciable problem32. In addition, respondents from the villages were
significantly less likely to report experience with some of the problems that were deemed to
have legal solution33.
4. Resolution of justiciable events
When a social problem with potential legal resolution emerges, the involved parties form
certain expectations for its resolution. In a society with properly functioning legal system the
vast majority of the legal problems should be amenable to resolution, either in the “shadow of
law” or with the formal mechanisms that law provides34. Respondents who reported
encounters with justiciable events were asked about their expectations with a particular legal
problem35. More than a third of those who had justiciable problems expected that a public
institution will intervene and will solve the existing problem (37.43%, n=463). In this
question a public institution was defined in a very broad way to encompass a wide variety of
state and municipal public authorities. Some of the justiciable problems indeed require active
29
Traditionally in Bulgaria a distinction is made between cities and villages. The latter are relatively
homogeneous category of residences with small number of inhabitants (up to 3000, but usually less than 1000),
who are older, less educated and poorer as compared with the population of the cities. Three types of cities are
used in the questionnaire to capture the differences. According to the last census from 2001 in the capital city
Sofia live approximately 1.17 mln. people. As of 2008 the estimates are that in Sofia live between 1.5-2 mln.
people. Next category of cities includes the 26 regional cities which are the biggest in the country. About 2.9
mln. people live in the regional cities. Smaller cities which will normally have between 3 000 and 50 000
inhabitants form the last category of residence.
30
There are 112 county courts and 28 district courts in Bulgaria. For most civil disputes the county courts have
jurisdiction as courts of first instance and the district courts are appellate instance in such cases.
31
t=2.69, p(2 tailed)=.008
32
t=2.82, p(2 tailed)=.005
33
39.3% of the respondents from villages report at least one problem. For small cities the percentage is 48.3, for
regional centers 46.5 and for Sofia – 56.9;  =35.58, p<.000
34
See ROBERT COOTER, et al., Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: A Testable Model of Strategic Behavior 11
J. Legal Stud., (1982).
35
In cases when more than one problem was reported the interview focused on the second most recent problem.
10
involvement on behalf of public authority – i.e. public services, social benefits and restitution
of real estate. As expected in these categories there is a high level of reliance on the public
institutions to solve the problem (respectively 76%, 78% and 63% of respondents with
problems from the respective types indicated expectation for public authority to solve the
problem). Expectations that public institutions will solve the existing problem are strong in
many of the other categories. For instance, 59% of respondents who report on a road accident
expect a public authority to step in and solve the problem. In the categories of family and
employment problems the proportion is lower (36% and 39%, but still forms the most
frequent expectation).
The finding could be interpreted from different perspectives. In only 5% of the cases the
respondents indicated that they expect that the problem will be solved in a discourse of
negotiations and mutual agreement with the other party. Nevertheless, 69% report a contact
with the other party and 15% report a failed attempt for contact. Only 16% did not meet the
other party in the dispute. Surprisingly, in one in four consumption problems the potential
claimant did not meet with the vendor of the faulty good or service. In 47% of the torts the
attempt to bring together the tortfeasor and the victim was unsuccessful. It is difficult from
these data to make inferences regarding the legal culture, but certainly conciliations and
negotiations are underestimated as means for resolution of justiciable problems.
At second place, explanation for the over reliance on the public institutions to solve the
existing justiciable problems could be sought in one dimension of the general social culture,
which is present at different levels in the post-socialist countries. Still many of the citizens of
these countries and Bulgaria in particular, expect the state to play extensive corrective role in
cases when their private lives, rights and interests are endangered. To what extent this trait is
a reminiscent of the years of totalitarian state or a phenomenon with deeper social, cultural
and historic roots is difficult to say. With regard to access to justice, one can assume that the
effective protection of the legal interests depends substantially on the ability of the public
institutions to meet these expectations.
In accordance with the stated expectations the most frequent reaction to the experienced
problems is to seek resolution from public authority. Cumulatively items 1 and 5 account for
more than one third of the answers (35.34%). Almost one in five respondents who
experienced justiciable problems attempted to solve the problem with some sort of actions.
Such actions could be of different nature and magnitude. Threatening the other party with a
legal action is only one of the possible actions that the person could undertake even if he is
not fully aware of the substantial and procedural rules, applicable to the problem. In the two
most frequently experienced categories of justiciable problems (consumers and neighbors
problems) respectively 48% and 30% of the respondents report that they responded to the
problem through some sort of action.
11
Table 1: Responses to justiciable problems
Response
N
Percentage
Referred the problem to the competent public authority
268
24.47
(state/municipal institution)
Solved the problem alone with actions
205
18.72
Threatened the other party with a law suit
123
11.23
Sought legal advice from attorney
123
11.23
Referred to the superior of the official who refused a service
119
10.87
Sought legal advice to relative/friend/colleague
101
9.22
Referred the problem to court/arbitration
74
6.76
Negotiations with the other party
35
3.20
Sought legal advice from non-for-profit organization
14
1.28
Sought legal advice from my employer
11
1.00
Sought legal advice from trade union
10
0.91
Referred the problem to criminal gangs
5
0.46
Gave money to the other party to solve the problem
4
0.37
Sought for mediation services
3
0.27
People tend to look for legal advice primarily from two sources – professional providers and
the social network. Some 11% of the responses to the justiciable problems consist of
consultation with attorney and further 9% sought legal advice from relatives, friends and
colleagues. Family, employment and real estate problems are the justiciable problems for
which the respondent most often sought advice from professional. Advice from the social
network of the respondent is more evenly distributed among the categories of justiciable
problems, but again family problems and issues related to real estate are the types of problems
for which the respondents are more inclined to look for legal advice from the people they
trust. Acquiring social benefits is another area in which the respondents used their social
network more often (18% of all social benefits problems) than the average. This finding is a
consequence of the complex system for claiming social benefits and the inability of people
who need and use social benefits to afford more competent advice.
Reaction to justiciable problem does not mean that it will be solved or the affected party will
be better of. Lack of action, however, indicates disbelief that the problem could be controlled
or affected by the person. Almost one third (31%) of all reported justiciable problems were
not acted upon. In certain categories the respondents were more likely to lump the problem –
claiming social benefits (44%), torts (38%), employment (35%), consumption problems
(36%). The most frequent reason for lumping the problem is the lack of belief in the
respondent that any result could be achieved in the particular situation. Half of the
respondents (50.4%) did not react because they did not see the linkage between the efforts
needed and the resolution of the problem. Lack of time and money are also powerful motives
to lump a justiciable problem.
12
5. Multiple Justiciable Problems
Data shows that some 45.3% of the sample of adult Bulgarians experienced serious and
difficult to resolve justiciable that could have potential legal resolution. Above was given
brief contextual information regarding the frequencies of the justiciable problems and the
common resolution strategies. In this section will be discussed the phenomenon of multiple
justiciable problems. 3.5 years are significant period of a life time and one can reasonably
expect that if a person has experienced a justiciable problem this problem will be
accompanied by other similar events. Research from other jurisdictions demonstrates that
multiple problems do not occur randomly. They follow certain patterns and tend to cluster
together in accordance with the particular characteristics of the respondents, the type and
nature of the problems and numerous environmental factors36.
In the sample of 1237 people who have reported experience with justiciable event for the last
3.5 years it was found that 18.5% (n=229) of the respondents reported a second problem. Of
those with two problems 37.55% (n=86) reported a third problem. Further on, 26 persons
(30%) recalled 4th legal problems, 13 – five and 8 reported six or more. Certainly the memory
decay effect or the unwillingness of the respondents to get into too much detail has trimmed
the number of reported problems37. Nevertheless there is a pattern of additive effect of each
problem over the probability that a next justiciable problem will be reported. In Figure 2 is
graphed the change in the odds that a next problem will be experienced given that one
problem has been reported. Having one problem has odds of .23 to lead to second. Those who
have two problems already have risk of .60 of experiencing a third problem. With the
exception of the influence of the first and the third justiciable problem over the second and
respectively the forth problems, the increase in the odds of experiencing next justiciable
problem is progressing upwards. This means that the more justiciable problems person
experiences, the more he is vulnerable to next problems. Difficulties with accessing legal
advice when a problem is present should contribute to the additive effect.
Figure 2: Additive effect of justiciable problems
36
CURRIE, The Legal Problems of Everyday Life. PLEASENCE, et al., Causes of Action: Civil Law and Social
Justice.
37
See PLEASENCE, et al., Causes of Action: Civil Law and Social Justice. at p. 60 and next.
13
The distribution of the second problems closely approximates the distribution of the problems
that were experienced first. There is no change in the order of the three most frequent
problems – consumer, neighborhood and social benefits. The proportion of the consumer
problems is larger in the group of second problems – one in three of the second justiciable
problems are connected to consumption of goods or services. This is another evidence of the
pervasive character of the consumer problems and the non-existence of predictable and
coherent mechanism to resolve disputes that arise out of the trade of goods and services.
Figure 3: Frequency distribution of second justiciable problems
Of the 86 respondents who reported three or more justiciable problems 28% (n=24) had
consumer problems, 15% (n=13) experienced troubles with the neighbors and 13% (n=11)
had problems from the employment category. Significantly larger sample is required to make
conclusive inferences regarding the parameters of the justiciable problems that were incurred
as third and next. Of interest here is to analyze further the relationships between the first,
second and third problems.
Different categories of justiciable events have varying impact on the people who experience
them. If one legal problem triggers to some extent the next legal problem then different
categories of problems should have different likelihoods of causing of or at least contributing
to the next problems. For instance, people who report problems with renting a house or
apartment experienced next legal problem in more than a third of the cases (Table 2). The
number of renting problems is small but it can be seen that the second problems are either
again associated with the rented property or concern money. Consumer problems are also way
above the mean likelihood of .18 for all civil legal problems that were captured with the
questionnaire. In more than 2/3 of the cases when the first problem is classified as consumer
problem the second problem is also related to purchase of goods and services (see below).
14
Of interest are the justiciable events that exhibit lower than the mean likelihood that a next
justiciable problem will be reported. Surprisingly the family problems are very rarely (7% of
the cases in which one justiciable problem was reported) followed by a second problem.
Respondents in Bulgaria might be less eager to discuss personal matters with person whom
they do not know. The specifics of the family problems could have explanatory potential as
well. Divorce constitutes 46.6% of all reported family problems. According to the Bulgarian
Family Code the first instance court in divorce cases should decide on all personal and
material consequences of the divorce, including the splitting of the family property, alimonies
and parental rights. Domestic violence is the second most frequent problem from the family
law category. The Law on Protection Against Domestic Violence38 entered into force on 1 of
April 2005. Since its enactment a body of case law is gradually amassing but in general the
awareness that the domestic violence is regulated by law and the victims have certain
enforceable rights is still low.
Table 2: Likelihoods that a second problem will be reported
Problem Category
Renting real estate
Consumption of goods and services
Leasing real estate
Employment
Social benefits
Public service
Money problems
Neighborhood problems
Road accidents
Medical malpractice
Restitution of real estates
Acquiring real estate
Family problems
Torts
Total
Likelihood Std. Deviation Std. Error
.35
.27
.22
.20
.20
.20
.18
.16
.16
.14
.12
.08
.07
.00
.18
0.49
0.44
0.42
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.32
0.28
0.25
0.00
0.39
0.11
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.01
In order to test the hypothesis that first, second and third problems are not randomly
distributed, a probability that the next problem will be of the same type was estimated for all
categories of justiciable events. In Figure 3 can be seen that the employment problems expose
the highest likelihood of leading to a new problem of the same type. If a person had
employment related problem or dispute, there is .77 likelihood that the second experienced
legal problem will be again related to employment. What makes employment problems so
pervasive? First, there is a lasting relationship between the employer and the employee.
Similarly to the family and neighborhood problems, the party in employment dispute has
38
Zakon za Zashtita Sreshtu Domashnoto Nasilie [Law on Protection Against the Domestic Violence] 2005,
State Gazette, N. 27, 29/03/2005
15
limited options to escape the problem. For family related problems the respective likelihood is
.6 and for neighborhood problems it is .53. Second, respondents who are in full employment
tend to be more educated than those who are not employed or in partial employment. The data
shows that respondents who report a second problem are slightly better educated than those
with one problem39 and significantly more educated as compared with the whole sample
consisting of respondents who report no justiciable event and respondents with one justiciable
event.
Table 3: Likelihood of experiencing the same problem
Problem Category
Likelihood Std. Deviation Std. Error
Employment
.77
0.44
0.11
Consumption of goods and services
.68
0.47
0.05
Social benefits
.63
0.49
0.09
Family problems
.60
0.55
0.24
Renting real estate
.57
0.53
0.20
Leasing real estate
.57
0.51
0.14
Restitution of real estates
.57
0.53
0.20
Neighborhood problems
.53
0.51
0.09
Acquiring real estate
.50
0.53
0.19
Money problems
.41
0.51
0.12
Public service
.27
0.47
0.14
Road accidents
.14
0.38
0.14
Medical malpractice
.00
0.00
0.00
Total
.57
0.50
0.03
A person who experienced consumer problem has high likelihoods that the next problem will
be again related to purchase of goods or services. One plausible explanation for the increased
likelihood could be that if the first problem remains unresolved it will trigger a second
problem. The design of the study does not allow analyzing the impact of the problem
resolution on the chain of following problems40. Another hypothesis could be that the people
who are aware of their rights will be more willing and better able to see the legal dimensions
of the problem and to insert it into the naming, blaming and claiming framework41.
Interesting is the category of problems in which the experience of one type of justiciable event
is connected with a decreased chance to observe that event of the same category will be
reported by the same respondent again. People who faced problems with money, grievances
with public services and road accidents are more likely to report as second justiciable event a
problem from a different category. In the case of auto-related accident it is understandable
that only 14% of the respondents report another accident as second problem. After all, only a
small proportion of the population bears considerable risk to repeatedly experience road
accidents. Less obvious is the relationship between the first and the second reported
39
t=5.03, p<.00
Comprehensive data (including the extent to which the problem has been resolved) is collected for the second
most recent problem. In cases where there are two justiciable events, information will be gathered for the second
problem and there is no way to conclude how the first problem developed.
41
WILLIAM L. F. FELSTINER, et al., The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming
. . . 15 Law & Soc'y Rev., (1980-1981).
40
16
justiciable event when the first problem was related to public services. Table 3 shows that the
problem with claiming social benefits tend to re-occur often (in 63% of the cases with more
than one justiciable problem reported). Why is this difference? The answer could be found in
the particular problems that form each of the categories. In the public services category there
are problems with obtaining information, documents or services from public authorities. The
category of social benefits is more specific – it focuses exclusively on problems with
receiving social benefits. Hence the former category is more general, less distinguishable and
not so closely related to the existential needs of the respondents, as the social benefits
problems could be. A person who believes to be entitled to receive benefits is probably more
persistent in his attempts to collect the checks. Another plausible explanation for the high
likelihood could be that the success in this endeavor could stimulate application for other
benefits. Yet, the frequent experience problems related to the social benefits could be due to
the fact that these are disbursed each month and potentially each separate transaction could
trigger a problem.
Above was discussed the relation between properties of the justiciable problems and the
tendencies of some respondents to report multiple problems. In the next paragraphs will be
analyzed the effects of the socio-demographic properties of the respondents on the multiple
problems.
Education has significant impact on tendency of respondents to report multiple problems.
Those with academic degrees are considerably more likely to report one or more justiciable
problem than the respondents with less education42. 55.6% of the respondents with university
level education reported one or more legal problem against 43.6% for the other groups. If the
language of odds is used, the most educated respondents have odds of 1.25 to 1 to report
experience with justiciable problem against odds of .77 to 1 for the rest of the sample. At the
level of the second and third legal problem the relationship between prevalence of justiciable
problems and level of education start to change. Those with high school degree were most
likely to report a second problem43. They were also significantly more likely to experience a
third problem44. This finding could be an indication of the better capabilities of the more
educated and more affluent respondents to cope with legal problems.
Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed on the cases in which at least two serious and
difficult to resolve problems were reported. Age, gender, education, employment status and
residence of the respondents were used as prediction variables. Three clusters were identified
amongst the 229 persons who reported two or more justiciable problems45. The clusters differ
significantly in all of the classification variables except for gender. Age varies significantly
across the three groups – mean age of the respondents was 53, 34 and 71 years. Not
surprisingly the people from the cluster of the seniors include 93% retired people. For the
other two groups the majority are in full time or part time employment. Respondents from the
second group are more likely to be singles, the first group has 71% married and the last group
is almost equally split between married and widowed. The cluster of the older respondents is
less educated than the other two groups. In the first cluster more than 1/3 of the respondents
have academic degrees and less than 15% have not completed high school. The youngest
  32.29, p<.00
High school – 22.4%, university degree – 21.2%, professional high school – 18.3%
44
Professional high school – 43.9%, high school – 41.1%, university degree – 37.9%,
45
n 1 =89, n 2 =79, n 3 =61
42
43
17
cluster is also well educated with almost 2/3 with high school and about ¼ with academic
degrees.
For the purposes of the analyses the problems were aggregated from 14 into 8 broader
categories. All problems relating to real estate were grouped together. Medical malpractice,
personal injury and road accidents were all grouped into the category tort. Cross tabulation of
the second experienced problems and the three clusters shows expected results. The cluster of
young respondents exposes relatively fewer real estate and public service problems as
compared to the first two groups. As a function of their stronger purchasing power, the
respondents from this cluster are more likely to report consumer problems as second problem.
In the middle age cluster the most prevalent problem are again consumer issues but the people
from this group are more likely than the other two groups to have money related problems as
well as family problems. The cluster that includes more experienced but also less educated
respondents is less likely to report consumer issues. Respondents from this group have tighter
budgets and live in smaller villages where there is much less competition in the retail sector as
compared to the bigger cities. Neighborhood issues (21.3%), grievances related to public
services (19.7%) and real estate problems (19.7%) are the most frequently reported justifiable
problems.
Similar cluster analysis was performed on the cases in which three or more justiciable
problems were reported. The 86 cases visibly cluster into two groups which differ by age,
education and residence46. Mean age for the first group is 61 years and for the second is 36
years. The group of more experienced respondents is slightly better educated and tends to live
in smaller settlements. As in the case of the second problems, the younger cluster is more
likely to experience certain problems as compared to the cluster of older respondents. For
instance, 33.3% of the younger cluster report consumer problems against 23.7% for the
second cluster. Employment, tort and family problems are significantly more likely to be
reported in the first group. Problems that bothered the second cluster apart of consumer issues
are: neighborhood problems 28.9% (4.4% for the first cluster) and real estate 21.1%.
Accumulation of legal problems could impact various dimensions of the well-being of the
persons who experience them. Criminal victimization and level of trust in the justice system
are two variables that show the additive effect of multiple problems. Only 4.6% of the
respondents who did not report experiences with justiciable problems have been victims of
crime for the reference period (Figure 4). More than 1/3 of the respondents with four and
more civil legal problems were victims of some sort of crime.
Similar linear relationship is observed between the number of justiciable problems and level
of distrust in the justice system. Comparison between those without problems and the
category of four problems shows 56% increase in distrust in the norm and institutions that
should provide means for resolving the problems.
46
n 1 =39, n 2 =47
18
Figure 4: Impact of multiple problems
6. Conclusion
The first survey of justiciable problems in Bulgaria shows worrying results. Almost half of the
respondents have experienced serious and difficult to resolve legal problem in the last 3.5
years. Most likely the response to the experienced civil legal problems is one of two
alternatives: to take personal actions or to lump the problem and swallow its negative
consequences. Approximately 1 in five respondents with one problem report that a second
occurred. Multiple problems do not occur randomly and follow certain patterns. Both problem
characteristics and the personal characteristics of the respondents are predictors of multiple
justiciable problems. Employment problems, consumer disputes and social benefits problems
are more likely to lead to another problem of the same type. People with higher level of
education tend to report more problems than those with less education. On the one hand, this
could reinforce the theory that those who are better off conduct more economic and social
transaction which leads to increased risk of experiencing legal problems. Supplemental
explanation of the phenomenon could be that the individuals with better education and higher
income will be more aware of their rights and ready to protect them.
It is difficult to make inferences on the causal relationships between series of problems or
between legal problems and other aspects of the quality of life. The empirical data shows that
with increase of the number of problems increases the likelihood that a person will be
experiencing more difficult situations. Crime victimization and distrust in the legal system is
increasing linearly by each civil problem. As the Bulgarian civil justice system provides very
limited in scope and depth institutional designs, with each additional problem increases the
chance that the problem will remain unresolved and the negative consequences will be
impacting the party. With the increasing complexity of social and economic transactions law
and legal institutions are becoming more inaccessible and in essence contribute to the social
exclusion.
19
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
American Bar Association, 1994. Comprehensive Legal Needs Study. American Bar
Association, Chicago.
Cooter, R., Marks, S., and Mnookin, R., 1982. Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law:
A Testable Model of Strategic Behavior The Journal of Legal Studies 11, 225-251
Coumarelos, C., Wei, Z., and Zhou, A. Z., 2006. Justice made to measure : NSW legal
needs survey in disadvantaged areas. LAW AND JUSTICE FOUNDATION OF NEW
SOUTH WALES.
Curran, B. A., 1977. The Legal Needs of the Public: The Final Report of A National
Survey. American Bar Foundation, Chicago.
Currie, A., 2006. A National Survey of the Civil Justice Problems of Low and
Moderate Income Canadians. International Journal of the Legal Profession 13, 217 –
242.
Currie, A., The Legal Problems of Everyday Life. International Legal Aid Group,
Antwerp, Belgium, 2007.
Genn, D. H., and Paterson, A., 2001. Paths to Justice Scotland. What People in
Scotland Do and Think About Going to Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford.
Genn, H., 1999. Paths to Justice. What people do and think about going to law? Hart
Publishing, Oxford.
Gramatikov, M., 2004. Study on Free Legal Aid in Criminal Cases in Bulgaria, 2004.
In: Institute, O. S., (Ed. Open Society Institute - Sofia, Sofia, pp. 37.
Havrylyshyn, O., and Thomas, W., 1999. Determinants of Growth in Transition
Countries. Finance & Development Magazine 36.
Johnsen, J. T., 1999. Legal Needs Studies in a Market Context. In: Reagan, F.,
Paterson, A., Goriely, T., and Fleming, D., (Eds.), The Transformation of Legal Aid.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kritzer, H. M., Miller, R. E., and Felstiner, W. L. F., 1981. Studying Disputes by
Survey. American Behavioral Scientist 25, 67-74.
Law, J., Assenti, S., Barton, G., McKissock, K., Baker, D., Barrow, S., and Cookson,
D., 2004. Community Legal Service: Assessing Need for Legal Advice in Scotland.
In: Research, S. E. S., (Ed., Edinburgh.
Michelson, E., 2007. Climbing the Dispute Pagoda: Grievances and Appeals to the
Official Justice System in Rural China. American Sociological Review 72, 459-485.
Pleasence, P., Buck, A., Balmer, N., O’Grady, A., Genn, D. H., and Smith, M., 2004.
Causes of Action: Civil Law and Social Justice. Stationery Office, London
Trubek, D. M., Sarat, A., Felstiner, W. L. F., Kritzer, H. M., and Grossman, J. B.,
1983. THE COSTS OF ORDINARY LITIGATION. UCLA Law Review 31, 72-123.
van Velthoven, B. C. J., and ter Voert, M., 2004. Paths to Justice in the Netherlands.
Looking for signs of social exclusion. In: Caminada, K., and van Velthoven, B. C. J.,
(Eds.), Department of Economics Research Memorandum 2004.04. Leiden Univesity,
Leiden, pp. 28.
20
JON T. JOHNSEN, Legal Needs Studies in a Market Context, in The Transformation of Legal
Aid, (Francis Reagan, et al. eds., 1999).
HAZEL GENN, Paths to Justice. What people do and think about going to law? (Hart
Publishing. 1999).
BARBARA A. CURRAN, The Legal Needs of the Public: The Final Report of A National Survey
(American Bar Foundation. 1977).
HERBERT M. KRITZER, et al., Studying Disputes by Survey, 25 American Behavioral Scientist,
(1981).
DAVID M. TRUBEK, et al., THE COSTS OF ORDINARY LITIGATION, 31 UCLA L. Rev.,
(1983).
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Comprehensive Legal Needs Study. pt. (1994).
CHRISTINE COUMARELOS, et al., Justice made to measure : NSW legal needs survey in
disadvantaged areas (LAW AND JUSTICE FOUNDATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES.
2006).
AB CURRIE, The Legal Problems of Everyday Life (2007).
AB CURRIE, A National Survey of the Civil Justice Problems of Low and Moderate Income
Canadians, 13 Int'l J. Legal Prof., (2006).
HAZEL GENN & ALAN PATERSON, Paths to Justice Scotland. What People in Scotland Do and
Think About Going to Law (Hart Publishing. 2001).
JAMES LAW, et al., Community Legal Service: Assessing Need for Legal Advice in Scotland
(Scottish Executive Social Research ed., 2004).
BEN C. J. VAN VELTHOVEN & MARIJKE TER VOERT, Paths to Justice in the Netherlands.
Looking for signs of social exclusion. pt. 28 (2004).
PASCOE PLEASENCE, et al., Causes of action: First Findings of the LSRC Periodic Survey, 30
J. Law Soc., (2003).
ETAN MICHELSON, Climbing the Dispute Pagoda: Grievances and Appeals to the Official
Justice System in Rural China, 72 Am.Sociolog.Rev., (2007).
OLEH HAVRYLYSHYN & WOLF THOMAS, Determinants of Growth in Transition Countries, 36
Finance & Development Magazine, (1999).
MAURO CAPPELETTI & BRYANT GARTH, Access to Justice: The Newest Wave in the
Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective, 27 Buffalo Law Review, (1978).
MARTIN GRAMATIKOV, Study on Free Legal Aid in Criminal Cases in Bulgaria, 2004. pt. 37
(2004).
PASCOE PLEASENCE, et al., Causes of Action: Civil Law and Social Justice (Stationery
Office. 2004).
ROBERT COOTER, et al., Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: A Testable Model of Strategic
Behavior 11 J. Legal Stud., (1982).
WILLIAM L. F. FELSTINER, et al., The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming,
Blaming, Claiming . . . 15 Law & Soc'y Rev., (1980-1981).
21