Or at least R.I.P. for non-lawyer pro se litigants. Just when you thought the Supreme Court season had finally come to a close, the Court released a new rule book this morning. It’s 80 pages long and mostly a rehash, but the addition of Rule 28.8 garnered some attention for finally closing a door on the practice of non-lawyers arguing before the Court.
Though dramatic, these numbers do not necessarily imply that lack of access to counsel worsens case outcomes for pro se litigants. There are a number of plausible explanations for low win rates by pro se litigants even if pro se litigants are not disadvantaged in court. For instance, and likely most significantly, because lawyers frequently work on a contingency fee basis, a lawyer is more likely to agree to work on behalf of a plaintiff with a strong case than a plaintiff with a weak case.84 The stronger the plaintiff’s case, the higher the expected damages and expected payout for the lawyer. Hence, it is less likely that strong cases proceed pro se.
91. Property cases are an interesting exception, with a represented plaintiff still 0.88 times as likely to win a case against a represented litigant as against a pro se defendant. Though the noncausal nature of the comparisons weighs against drawing any overly significant inferences from this fact, it does suggest that the trend toward increasing numbers of defendants proceeding pro se in property suits might not be a particularly important issue.
Shauna Strickland. Virginia Self-Represented Litigant Study: Outcomes of Civil Cases in General District Court, Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, and Circuit Court. (December 2017). This report characterizes Circuit Court civil cases by analyzing caseload composition, the presence of legal representation, the level of case contention, and case outcomes.
Though dramatic, these numbers do not necessarily imply that lack of access to counsel worsens case outcomes for pro se litigants. There are a number of plausible explanations for low win rates by pro se litigants even if pro se litigants are not disadvantaged in court. For instance, and likely most significantly, because lawyers frequently work on a contingency fee basis, a lawyer is more likely to agree to work on behalf of a plaintiff with a strong case than a plaintiff with a weak case.84 The stronger the plaintiff’s case, the higher the expected damages and expected payout for the lawyer. Hence, it is less likely that strong cases proceed pro se.
This Part focuses on an extensive set of pro se reforms made in the federal district court in EDNY. Because these reforms were publicly announced around the time of their implementation, this Part conducts a difference-in-differences analysis of these reforms to complement the differences analysis from Part III.116 This analysis strengthens the results in Part III, suggesting that pro se reforms have not impacted case outcomes for pro se litigants.
4. If you or your group made any effort to inform business owners in your area about the ADA, you might want to make a Paragraph 18 that will read like this: "On April 22, 1993, the Louisville CIL conducted a free seminar on the ADA, and sent out fliers to all downtown businesses, to educate them about the ADA. The business in question still refused to become accessible. If this is not relevant, just ignore it, and number paragraphs accordingly.
A longstanding and widely practiced rule prohibits corporations from being represented by non-attorneys,[17] consistent with the existence of a corporation as a "person" separate and distinct from its shareholders, officers and employees.[18] The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that a "nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. Requiring a lawyer to represent a corporation in filing the notice does not violate the guarantee that any suitor may prosecute or defend a suit personally. A corporation is not a natural person and does not fall within the term "any suitor."[19][20][21]
The regression is run with five different sets of specifications. The first regresses outcomes against a dummy for whether the case took place with EDNY reform; the second model adds a dummy variable indicating whether each case took place in EDNY; the third model adds dummy variables indicating which district court each case was filed in; the fourth adds dummy variables for the year the case was filed (but removes the district dummy variables); and the fifth model includes dummy variables for both the year and district for each case.126
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.

Our mission is to provide the highest level of service to the Court and all people having business before the Court. We maintain the public record of court proceedings, provide access to the Court and administrative support to the Court’s judicial officers. We earn the public’s trust and confidence by carrying out our mission in a manner that is accurate, efficient, courteous, and easy to understand.
Federal courts can impose liability for the prevailing party's attorney fees to the losing party if the judge considers the case frivolous or for purpose of harassment, even when the case was voluntarily dismissed.[56][57] In the case of Fox v. Vice, U.S. Supreme Court held that reasonable attorneys' fees could be awarded to the defendant under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, but only for costs that the defendant would not have incurred "but for the frivolous claims."[58][59] Unless there is an actual trial or judgment, if there is only pre-trial motion practice such as motions to dismiss, attorney fee shifting can only be awarded under FRCP Rule 11 and it requires that the opposing party file a Motion for Sanctions and that the court issue an order identifying the sanctioned conduct and the basis for the sanction.[60] Pro se still has a right to appeal any order for sanctions in the higher court.[61] In the state courts, however, each party is generally responsible only for its own attorney fees, with certain exceptions.[57]
A jury trial begins with the judge choosing prospective jurors to be called for voir dire (examination). Local Rule 47.1. The jury box shall be filled before examination on voir dire and the Court will examine the jurors as to their qualifications. Not less than five (5) days before trial, the parties are to submit written requests for voir dire questions. Unless otherwise ordered, six (6) jurors plus a number of jurors equal to the total number of preemptory challenges which are allowed by law shall be called to complete the initial panel. Local Rule 48.1. After voir dire of all prospective jurors, a jury of six (6) is named and instructed by the judge regarding the issues they will be deciding. Local Rule 51.1.
5. If you or your group did anything to inform that particular business owner of his violation, then you might want to make that paragraph 19. It might read like this, "During the summer of 1997, the Louisville CIL visited the business in question, and spoke to the owner. The owner could easily make his business accessible but has chosen not to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act."
The Supreme Court has held that where a statute permits attorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing party, the attorney who prevails in a case brought under a federal statute as a pro se litigant is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees.[51] This ruling was based on the court's determination that such statutes contemplate an attorney-client relationship between the party and the attorney prosecuting or defending the case, and that Congress intends to encourage litigants to seek the advice of a competent and detached third party. As the court noted, the various circuits had previously agreed in various rulings "that a pro se litigant who is not a lawyer is not entitled to attorney's fees".[52]
116. A difference-in-differences analysis is an analysis that looks at two samples (here, EDNY pro se litigant outcomes and non-EDNY pro se litigant outcomes) and compares the difference in the average result between those two groups before and after a treatment. This analysis compares the difference between EDNY and non-EDNY pro se litigant outcomes before the pro se reform with the difference between EDNY and non-EDNY pro se litigant outcomes after the pro se reform. Non-EDNY in this analysis refers to all New York federal district courts other than EDNY: the Northern District of New York, SDNY, and Western District of New York. The treatment effect is the difference between these two differences—that is, the difference in differences. For more discussion of this methodology, see generally Marianne Bertrand, Esther Duflo, and Sendhil Mullainathan, How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?, 119 Q J Econ 249 (2004).
Some pro se litigants who are federal prisoners are subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has asserted: ""For over thirteen years, the Prison Litigation Reform Act has denied access to the courts to countless prisoners who have become victims of abuse, creating a system of injustice that denies redress for prisoners alleging serious abuses, barriers that don't apply to anyone else. It is time for Congress to pass legislation to restore the courts as a needed check on prisoner abuse."[36][37] 54% of judges responding to a Federal Judicial Conference survey use videoconferences for prisoner pro se hearings.[16]:29
×