Central District of California - 2012 Pro Se Annual Report

Language Barriers

prevnext

It appears that certain populations either hire counsel more frequently or utilize different types of services when they seek assistance from non-attorneys in filing bankruptcy. Non-English speaking debtors appeared at Debtor ID hearings and described through interpreters numerous foreclosure prevention fraud schemes. Their inability to access or know about legitimate help often unnecessarily cost them $5,000 to $10,000 and the loss of their home to foreclosure anyway.

The Debtor ID Program and the United States Trustee’s Language Assistance Program have shown how significant a factor the large non-English speaking immigrant population of the district affects the pro se rate. In 2012, the Central District remained one of the most racially and culturally diverse districts in the nation. The United States Trustee’s Language Assistance Program once again identified the top languages for interpretation service requests. Spanish, Korean, Arabic, Armenian, Mandarin, Japanese, Vietnamese, Russian and Farsi were among the most frequently requested of the 39 languages cited for interpretation services in 2012. While there is no measure of the English language ability of pro se debtors, Public Counsel has tracked the ethnicity of individuals accessing the Self-Help Center in Los Angeles. Thirty-nine percent of the visitors are Hispanic and nine percent are Asian.

The debtors who appeared at the Debtor ID Program hearings, and those representing themselves in response to relief from stay motions disproportionately spoke little to no English. The Debtor ID hearings have illustrated how frequently a bankruptcy case is also used to defraud these immigrants of their last dollar, while also abusing the creditors and the Court.

  1. Debtor ID Program
  2. Bankruptcy Petition Preparer (BPP) Tracking
  3. Chapter 7 Success
  4. Chapter 13 Failure
  5. Burden on Court Staff
  6. Fraud and Abuse
  7. Language Barriers
  8. Professional Involvement in “Pro Se” Fraud Cases