When a sitting judge chooses to publish an op�’ed, the public has every right to expect clarity, humility, and a commitment to strengthening trust in the courts. Judge William P. Carlucci’s column, “The High Cost of Not Having a Lawyer,” does the opposite. Rather than illuminating the challenges facing ordinary Pennsylvanians, it reveals a deeper and more troubling reality: too many people in our justice system are blamed for circumstances they did not create and cannot control.

Carlucci’s piece frames self�’represented litigants as the architects of their own misfortune. He lists reasons why they “fail,” implying that their struggles stem from laziness, ignorance, or a lack of discipline. But this framing ignores the most important fact in the entire conversation — most people who appear in court without a lawyer do so because they cannot afford one, cannot obtain one, or were turned away from legal aid due to chronic underfunding. Poverty is not a personal failing, and it should not be treated as one from the bench.

The judge’s argument rests on a premise that collapses under scrutiny: that success in court depends on “understanding how local judges think.” That statement alone should give every Pennsylvanian pause. Courts are not supposed to function as insider systems where only those who can afford a guide know the unwritten rules. Justice is not a private club. If the outcome of a case depends on whether a litigant can decode a judge’s preferences, the problem is not the litigant — it is the system.

More concerning is the tone of the op�’ed itself. When a judge publicly characterizes a class of people who appear before him as unprepared, incapable, or burdensome, it sends a message that extends far beyond the page. It signals to future litigants that they will walk into a courtroom already judged. It signals to the public that the judiciary sees itself as above the people it serves. And it signals to those who cannot afford counsel that their voices will be discounted before they ever speak.

This is not merely a matter of rhetoric. Judicial ethics require judges to avoid even the appearance of bias. Publishing an op�’ed that disparages self�’represented litigants — many of whom have no choice but to represent themselves — undermines public confidence in the courts. It also risks chilling the willingness of ordinary citizens to seek justice at all.

If Judge Carlucci wished to use his platform constructively, he could have highlighted the real barriers facing Pennsylvanians: the scarcity of legal aid, the complexity of court procedures, the financial strain of hourly billing, and the lack of accessible self�’help resources. He could have advocated for reforms that would make the system more navigable for everyone, not just those who can afford counsel. He could have used his voice to expand access to justice rather than scold those who lack it.

Instead, the op�’ed reads as a lecture from the bench — one that blames the public for the system’s failures while absolving the system of responsibility.

Pennsylvania deserves better. We deserve judges who understand that justice is not measured by how well people navigate a maze, but by whether the maze needed to exist in the first place. We deserve judges who recognize that fairness is not a privilege reserved for those who can pay for it. And we deserve a judiciary that listens to the people it serves rather than chastising them from the pages of a newspaper.

I myself have appeared in front of Judge Carlucci multiple times as a pro se litigant – and I have witnessed the extreme bias firsthand and am hopeful the Pennsylvania Judiciary Conduct Board sees what the rest of us see and takes the appropriate disciplinary action.

The high cost of not having a lawyer is real. But the higher cost — the one we should all be worried about — is a justice system that forgets whom it is meant to serve.

State Rep. Jamie Flick, R-South Williamsport, represents parts of Lycoming and Union counties.