The center’s approach, known as “limited-scope legal assistance,” can fill an important void. Most federal courts devote substantial resources to pro se litigants, such as handbooks and staff time answering process questions, and pro se staff attorneys help judges process cases. But court staff may not give legal advice to litigants, and although private lawyers offer some volunteer assistance, they cannot meet demand.
For example, the Federal Rules of Evidence (often referred to as the FRE) govern the introduction of evidence in federal court trials. But about 40 states also use the FRE in their state court trials. And even those states that have not formally adopted the FRE have evidence rules that are quite similar to them. This means that, for the most part, trials are conducted in the same way nationwide. Another set of federal rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (or FRCP) apply similarly to govern procedural (rather than evidentiary) rules. Because of this basic uniformity, the book frequently refers you to ­specific rules that, even if they differ somewhat from your state’s rules, should help you understand the basic procedures that will apply to your case.
Lawyers and their bar associations who do get a glimmer of the access problem tend to think that it's strictly a money issue. They focus their efforts on pro bono services or what legal services programs still exist. This clearly confuses the forest for the trees. Poor and rich alike have a right to use the courts without an intermediary. Or to use a popular means of expressing a fundamental point: It's the monopoly, stupid. It probably is no coincidence that by directing their efforts towards the poor, lawyers are addressing the access problem only for people who can't afford to pay lawyers.
Now, even those who initially tried to get more people to represent themselves said there are problems, fueled at least partially by lawyer's fees that few of the poor can afford. It's not uncommon for a lawyer to ask for a $5,000 retainer to take a divorce case. Fees vary in different parts of the state -- anecdotes from lawyers and judges indicated that Fairfield County lawyers charge the highest prices -- but it is difficult to find anyone who charges less than $200 an hour and not uncommon for lawyers to charge $500 an hour, lawyers and judges said.
The EDNY pro se office has two primary functions.119 First, the magistrate judge’s pro se office—comprised of staff attorneys and administrative office employees—proposes initial orders to the assigned judge, including to dismiss or to direct the litigant to amend the complaint, and responds to inquiries from the judge’s offices about the cases. As part of these initial duties, the office gives procedural advice to individuals about filing and litigating their claims by answering questions and making forms and instructions available. Second, the magistrate judge automatically oversees all pro se cases that survive screening, handles pretrial matters, and presides at trial with the parties’ consent.120 These reforms do not exactly mimic those discussed in the FJC Survey and evaluated in the empirical analysis above. However, they do include a number of efforts similar to those evaluated in

As a general rule, the judges surveyed stated that a pro se litigant must comply with the rules and orders of the court, [and] enjoy no greater rights than those who employ counsel. Although pro se pleadings are viewed with tolerance a pro se litigant, having chosen to represent himself, is held to the same standard of conduct and compliance with court rules, procedures, and orders as are members of the bar. A party’s pro se status does not require us or the trial court to assume he must be led by the hand through every step of the proceeding he initiated.

Another popular method of resolving disputes outside of court is mediation, which is generally less formal and less costly than arbitration. Mediation is a voluntary process in which you meet with your adversary in the company of a neutral third person, the mediator. The mediator has no power to impose a solution; rather, the mediator’s role is to facilitate settlement by clarifying each party’s position, encouraging cooper­ation, and suggesting possible solutions. Professional mediators charge for their services, typically by the hour. Normally, the parties split the mediator’s fee.
7. At least some commentators have expressed concern that allocating more legal resources to pro se civil litigants might take away from resources needed for indigent criminal defense. See Barton and Bibas, 160 U Pa L Rev at 980–81 (cited in note 5). It is important, however, to recognize that legal resources also may trade off with nonlegal resources, and an analysis accounting for these trade-offs may make the economics of expanded legal resources for pro se litigants look more attractive. Additional money spent on lawyers or pro se assistance might be more economical than it first appears if, for example, additional state spending in an eviction or wrongful termination proceeding saves the government from paying for homeless shelters or welfare assistance at a later date.
This Comment furthers the legal community’s understanding of issues in pro se litigation by conducting an empirical analysis of pro se reforms in federal district courts. By comparing case outcomes for pro se litigants in district courts that have implemented these types of reforms with the outcomes of similarly situated pro se litigants in courts that have not implemented any reforms, this Comment provides an initial assessment of the impact of those reforms. The analysis reveals that thus far, a wide range of reforms undertaken by federal district courts have not significantly impacted case outcomes for pro se litigants. This analysis conflicts with the intuitions of the Supreme Court, commentators, and judges and clerks of district court offices, who have indicated their belief that these reforms are effective.
The empirical findings in Parts II, III, and IV have a number of potentially important implications for the future of pro se litigation. However, before considering the policy implications, this Comment must reiterate the limits of this analysis. First, this analysis centers only on case outcomes. Further analysis—for example, a survey-based analysis that asks litigants how they feel after they went through the litigation process—may reveal substantial benefits stemming from pro se reforms that this study does not find. Second, this analysis shows only that the reforms highlighted throughout this analysis have not impacted case outcomes for nonprisoner pro se litigants on average across courts. However, it might be the case that certain courts have been much more successful in implementing these reforms than others, and this analysis masks those successes. Moreover, limitations on survey data, coupled with the fact that litigation frequently takes years to resolve, mean that most of the data analyzed in this

This book explains each step of the civil litigation process from pre-litigation investigation through trial on the merits to give you the best chance of prevailing in your efforts whether you are a plaintiff or a defendant. Its detailed explanations of the various requirements of the litigation process are supported with detailed checklists that insure you leave nothing to chance as you work through the process and help you avoid the costly mistakes pro se litigants commonly make as they fight their lawsuits.
Contingency Fees. When representing people in personal injury cases, lawyers often take a percentage of the final judgment—often one-third, but varying depending on factors such as whether a case settles before trial—as their fee. Because you will try your own case, you will probably not use a contingency fee arrangement. If your coach suggests one, do not agree to give too high a percentage, since you will be doing most of the work.
If you go by calls and emails Jurisdictionary receives, there's good reason for this! Lawyers who bail at the last minute. Lawyers who don't know what they're doing. And, worst of all, lawyers wishing to curry favor with judges, afraid to stand up to the buffalo in the black robe and demand their clients' rights by making timely objections and threatening appeal.

The “Legal Services Lawyers” metric includes attorneys from ALAS (in Clayton, Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb, and Gwinnett counties) and GLSP (outside the five-county metro Atlanta area served by ALAS). For the ALAS counties, the number of Legal Services Lawyers serving a given county reflects both attorneys assigned to that county and a portion of the 22.5 ALAS attorneys not assigned to a particular county; for example, Cobb County has 6 ALAS lawyers, but its total includes 1/5 of the program-wide attorneys for an additional 4.5 attorneys. By contrast, GLSP attorneys are assigned to a particular region of the state and serve several counties (e.g. attorneys from the Albany-Valdosta office service 29 counties). Thus, outside the five-county metro area, the Legal Services Lawyers total for a particular county includes GLSP lawyers who also serve other counties. GLSP totals for a given county do not include 7 statewide attorneys or the 2 attorneys serving farmworkers throughout the state.
132. See generally D. James Greiner, Dalié Jiménez, and Lois R. Lupica, Self-Help, Reimagined, 92 Ind L J 1119 (2017). It is difficult to synthesize their conclusions into a simple path toward providing pro se litigants with effective assistance, but they emphasize in particular the need for breaking legal problems down into their constituent components, including mental, psychological, and cognitive issues, as well as identifying and implementing relevant research from nonlegal literature to address those problems. They emphasize in particular that often the “relevant tasks have little to do with formal law.” Id at 1172.
Remember this phrase: Litigation Privilege. The phrase has a formal meaning, but in layman’s language it means that lawyers can do just about anything, especially to a self-represented litigant, to protect their clients. They can lie, steal, cheat–and kill if they could get away with it–to win. Lawyers don’t always need tricks to defeat pro se litigants, but they try them anyway. They can scare defendants into paying more than they owe or settling for far less than they deserve. They’ll use a request for admissions to make pro se litigants “admit” to undeserved liability by not answering. Some will even attempt to keep away your court reporter by lying to you or to your court reporting agency. So keep your eyes open when you’ve cornered a lawyer. Chances are, there’s a trick coming, and when it does, don’t let your emotions get the best of you. Stay focused on your case. Reacting in anger by moving for sanctions, writing letters to the judge, reporting lawyer behavior in a hearing, or moving to disqualify a lawyer makes thinking and strategizing difficult. That’s not to say certain issues shouldn’t be addressed. If you must take an issue head-on, like moving for sanctions, do it strategically so you’ll get the most out of it. Otherwise, only address lawyer antics and judicial bias when it hurts your case, not when it hurts your feelings.
80. There are many factors affecting trends in prisoner pro se litigation that likely do not impact nonprisoner pro se litigation, such as the growth of the US prison population and concerns about the particular conditions and resources available to prisoners. For one discussion of prisoner pro se litigation, see generally Michael W. Martin, Foreword: Root Causes of the Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Crisis, 80 Fordham L Rev 1219 (2011).

8. Discovery Initial disclosures, disclosure of expert testimony, notices of depositions, depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admission, and answers and responses thereto shall be served upon other counsel and parties but shall NOT be filed with the court unless on order of the court or for use in the proceeding. LR 5.5
Out of that body of information, you develop your proof to support your claim at trial. Those relevant facts that tend to prove your theory of the case and disprove the other sides. The primary problem a pro se litigant faces compared to a lawyer is knowing how to exercise that power, knowing what questions to ask, and knowing what facts are likely to be persuasive on the ultimate issues at trial. It's having the power, but due to lack of experience, not utilizing it effectively that is usually the biggest hurdle for pro se litigants to overcome.
What happened in each of those cases? (1) Is the judicial system broken even in the U.S. Supreme Court? or (2) did these law offices team up in taking their client's money despite knowing that his position was devoid of merit? Logic prohibits to simultaneously answer both questions with a "no". Another possibility is that (3) these joint law offices genuinely misapprehended how the law applies to the controversy they litigated. Regardless, a pro se litigant who makes his best effort is exempt of the costly risks (2) and (3).

Our mission is to arm our customers with their own legal knowledge and instill a sense of confidence and security in navigating the pro se legal journey. Involvement in a lawsuit, whether brought by you or against, can be a very intimidating, emotional and overwhelming endeavor. Pro Se One Stop Legal Document Services, LLC offers personalized, one-on-one services to allay your fears and arm you with the knowledge to handle your own legal matters with utmost confidence. You will work very closely and personally with your legal document specialist to achieve your goals.
Table 4 suggests that, like the other pro se reforms that Part III considers, the pro se reforms in EDNY have not been effective in improving case outcomes for pro se litigants. The coefficient on the dummy variable indicating whether the EDNY pro se reforms were instituted is -0.59, and the 95 percent confidence interval suggests that there is some nonzero negative effect when no controls are instituted in the first model in column one.128 The results are similar for the second and third models except that, once all districts are controlled for, the negative impact of the reform is statistically significant. When dummies are introduced corresponding to the year of each case filing, this negative effect disappears and the fourth and fifth models indicate no statistically significant impact from the reform. Including the full set of controls for year and district, the 95 percent confidence interval suggests that the reforms in EDNY had an impact of somewhere between -0.43 percent and 0.51 percent on the win rates for pro se litigants, with a statistically insignificant mean estimated impact of 0.04 percent.129 These results suggest that pro se reforms were not effective at improving win rates for pro se litigants.
There are a few potential omitted variables that this analysis is unable to capture. One possible issue is changing caseloads in each district over time. If the composition of EDNY’s pro se docket shifted in a different way than New York’s other district courts in the years surrounding the reform, that may hide the impact of EDNY’s reforms. Another possibility is that noncourt legal actors may have changed their strategies in response to EDNY reforms. If, for example, outside legal aid clinics started shifting their resources to non-EDNY courts in response to this reform, possibly because those clinics knew that pro se litigants would receive adequate assistance in EDNY due to the reforms, that may also mask the impact of these reforms in EDNY. Finally, because this analysis compares the outcomes of pro se litigation in EDNY with outcomes of pro se litigation in the other New York district courts, if those district courts also made improvements to the pro se litigation process during this time period, the analysis might understate the effect of the EDNY reforms.

Put another way, the follow-up question might be, "Even if he can't get the attention of an advocacy lawyer (e.g., the police performed an illegal search, but not enough harm was done to move their needle; or perhaps the department otherwise hasn't attracted negative attention), are there warning signs that a pro se plaintiff can pick up on if he's listening carefully that will keep him out of trouble? Or is there really just too much experience needed to reliably make the right calls on critical decisions, so pro se litigation is inherently perilous?" – feetwet♦ May 28 '15 at 18:57


Abuse (Child, Domestic, Sexual) Agencies & Administration Automobile (DUI, Crimes, Speeding) Automobiles (Accidents, Insurance) Banking (Business, Consumer, Mortgage) Bankruptcy (Business, Consumer) Bars & Restaurants Business Formation & Dissolution Children (Adoption, Custody, Support) Class Actions (Bad Drugs, Products) Commercial Law and Contracts Commercial Real Estate Constitutional Law Construction (Disputes, Liens) Credit (Collections, Rights) Criminal Defense (General/Other) Discrimination/Harassment (Age, Sex) Divorce Eminent Domain or Condemnation Employment Contracts Entertainment & Media Environmental Law/Zoning Regulation Family Law (General/Other) Faulty/Defective Products/Services (Auto, Drug) Financing & Taxes Government (General/Other) Health Care & Insurance House or Condominium Husband & Wife Injuries (Personal, Workers Comp) Injury Accidents (Auto, Wrongful Death) Insurance (Auto, Health, Life, Property) Intentional Injuries (Assault, Bites) Investments (Annuities, Securities, IPOs) Juveniles Landlord/Tenant Malpractice (Medical, Professional) Parents (Elder Law/Care, Medicare, SSI) Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, etc. Pay and Benefits Personal Crimes Police, Prosecutors and Government Probate & Contested Wills Property Crimes Real Estate/Property (General/Other) Social Security Taxes Transportation (Air, Rail, Sea, Truck) Unfair Competition Unions Visas, Citizenship, Deportation, etc. White Collar Crime Workers' Compensation Wrongful Termination

^ Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 435 (1991), citing Gonzalez v. Kangas, 814 F. 2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987); Smith v. DeBartoli, 769 F. 2d 451, 453 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1067 (1986); Turman v. Tuttle, 711 F. 2d 148 (10th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); Owens-El v. Robinson, 694 F. 2d 941 (3d Cir. 1982); Wright v. Crowell, 674 F. 2d 521 (6th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Cofield v. Atlanta, 648 F. 2d 986, 987-988 (5th Cir. 1981); Lovell v. Snow, 637 F. 2d 170 (1st Cir. 1981); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F. 2d 717 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam).


63. As an example, pro se reforms could be counterproductive in a streamlined pro se office at a district court that consistently suggests dismissing pro se cases before a full hearing. For a more detailed discussion of entities that have called for civil Gideon rather than pro se trial court reform, and the contexts in which they have done so, see Greiner, Pattanayak, and Hennessy, 126 Harv L Rev at 906–07 (cited in note 47).
Of course a pro se litigant can prevail. The Judges, particularly in the family part, routinely have pro se litigants appear before them. The Judge does not determine matters based upon who has an attorney and who does not. The Judge determines matters based upon the facts and proofs presented. Some pro se litigants can be very effective and others are not. If you are not comfortable or need guidance as to what should/should not be included/presented, you would be wise to consult with an attorney with expertise in that area of law.

1. If you don't know where your federal court is, look under "U.S. Government Offices ‹ U.S. Courts" in the blue or green pages of your phone book. When you find out which district court is yours, add it at the top of your pro se where it reads, "in the United States District Court for the [ ] district of [your state]." Don't worry yet about the Civil Action No. The clerk will give that to you at your district court office.
8. Don't forget to fill out the Pro Se Motion to Commence an Action Without Payment. Each court has a different standard of who can afford to pay, and who can't. People on SSI typically do not have to pay any fees. People who work may be asked to pay as much as $150. It's important to keep this in mind when your group is deciding who will be the plaintiff. The plaintiff should outline exactly why he thinks he should not have to pay fees. Look at the enclosed copy for an example of a person's form who did not have to pay fees.
Examples Only.  The forms do not try to address or cover all the different types of claims or defenses, or how specific facts might affect a particular claim or defense.  Some of the forms, such as the form for a generic complaint, apply to different types of cases.  Others apply only to specific types of cases.  Be careful to use the form that fits your case and the type of pleading you want to file.  Be careful to change the information the form asks for to fit the facts and circumstances of your case.
×