Your state’s “Rules of Court.” These are rules that set the procedures and deadlines that the courts in a state must follow. Generally, states have separate sets of rules for different kinds of courts. For example, a state may have one set of rules for its municipal courts (courts that try cases involving limited amounts of money), another for its superior courts (courts that try cases involving higher amounts of money), and still others for its appellate courts (courts that review the decisions of municipal and superior courts). All the rules may, however, be published in a single book. Some states also have separate sets of rules for specialized courts, such as family law courts, which hear cases involving divorce, child custody, and child support; or probate courts, which hear cases involving wills and trusts.

Do your homework and educate the court. It is important, at the outset of a case, for trial counsel to determine if he or she is litigating against a wolf in sheep’s clothing. “When the pro se litigant is really an expert litigant, the court’s sympathy for his presumed inexpertise diminishes markedly.” Scott L. Garland, “Avoiding Goliath’s Fate: Defeating a Pro Se Litigant,” Litigation, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Winter 1998), at 45, 50 (1998). A search of the county or state docket may reveal that the pro se party has actually been involved in numerous lawsuits and maybe has even been deemed a vexatious litigant. Armed with this knowledge, counsel is better equipped to handle both interacting with the self-represented party and convincing the court that the pro se party’s failure to follow the rules warrants sanctions.
The above is general legal and business analysis. It is not "legal advice" but analysis, and different lawyers may analyse this matter differently, especially if there are additional facts not reflected in the question. I am not your attorney until retained by a written retainer agreement signed by both of us. I am only licensed in California. See also avvo.com terms and conditions item 9, incorporated as if it was reprinted here.

Though arbitration proceedings are generally less formal than trials, most of the principles ­described in this book also apply to arbitration. As in a trial, you and your adversary present evidence to the arbitrator through your own testimony and the testimony of witnesses. Like a judge, an arbitrator evaluates the credibility and legal significance of evidence to decide whether you win or lose the case.
In May 2001, EDNY began one of the country’s more dramatic pro se reform programs, elevating a magistrate judge to a newly created pro se office focused entirely on overseeing pro se litigation and assigning her broad responsibilities for overseeing pro se litigation.117 These reforms were implemented with the intent to help “facilitate access to the courts” for pro se litigants.118
If the jury or the judge awarded costs to the prevailing party, it is necessary to prepare a bill of costs incurred in the suit for the approval of the court. Costs are specified by Local Rule 54.1 as to what is allowable, and only those costs listed as allowable may be recovered by the prevailing party. Within fourteen (14) days after entry of judgment, under which the costs may be claimed, the prevailing party may serve and file a cost bill requesting taxation of costs itemized thereon.
Although EDNY created this office partially in response to the growth of pro se litigation in that district, its caseload appears broadly representative of pro se litigation more generally as of 1999, shortly before the creation of the magistrate judge’s office.121 The concerns that led to EDNY’s decision to appoint this special magistrate judge—the difficulty of fairly and efficiently managing the large pro se docket and the need for specialized resources to do so—seem to echo the same primary concerns that other courts and commentators have expressed about the pro se litigation process.122

To continue the first tip, one of the best things you can do is exude confidence in your physical mannerisms. This means standing up straight, having good posture, speaking with a confident voice, and making eye contact. There may be days when doing these things is difficult. There may even be days when you feel as if you are being phony by putting on this external face when you don’t feel that way internally.
If the parties have not requested a trial by jury, Local Rule 38.1, the judge becomes the trier of law (the judge) and the trier of fact (the jury). The judge then enters a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, sometimes prepared by the prevailing party, based on the evidence and arguments presented and then a judgment is entered based on those findings of fact and conclusions of law.

THE mother from North Haven sat in the back of Judge Patricia L. Harleston's wood-paneled courtroom at the New Haven County Courthouse and cried quietly. She was unemployed, she owed more than $2,000 in child support and she had no idea how she was going to defend herself. She said she couldn't afford a lawyer, so she was representing herself at the child support hearing. Meanwhile, the lawyer for the father of her children sat across the room.


123. Note that this does not necessarily imply the pro se reforms in EDNY are failing to improve the litigation process for pro se litigants. See notes 97–100 and accompanying text. It is conceivable that, for example, the reforms in EDNY have led to higher average settlement values for pro se plaintiffs and thus improved overall outcomes for pro se litigants. Moreover, there could be important benefits to a litigation process in which pro se litigants feel more fully heard and in which the process is more dignified for pro se litigants. This office could be creating large benefits for pro se litigants in EDNY overall. However, this analysis is restricted to case outcomes. Further, the pro se reforms in EDNY may be making a positive impact in terms of the efficiency side of the equation, helping to dispose of pro se cases more quickly and efficiently than would otherwise be the case and reducing the overall burden of pro se cases on the court despite not improving case outcomes for pro se litigants.
Self-Representation.—The Court has held that the Sixth Amendment, in addition to guaranteeing the right to retained or appointed counsel, also guarantees a defendant the right to represent himself. this a right the defendant must adopt knowingly and intelligently; under some circumstances the trial judge may deny the authority to exercise it, as when the defendant simply lacks the competence to make a knowing or intelligent waiver of counsel or when his self-representation is so disruptive of orderly procedures that the judge may curtail it. the essential elements of self-representation were spelled out in McKaskle v. Wiggins…
The primary dataset used in this Comment consists of administrative records of civil cases filed in federal district courts, which are collected and published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO).76 The AO dataset includes the district court in which the case was filed, the docket number of each case, the date on which the case was filed, the nature of the suit, the procedural progress of the case at the time the case was disposed of, the manner in which the case was disposed of, the party that the final judgment of the case was in favor of, and whether the plaintiff or the defendant was a pro se party.77
“In little more than a year the clinic has built confidence in the justice system for many pro se litigants. Our legal staff and volunteers have been able to make the process less confusing for clinic visitors and guide them in the right direction, which improves their chances for satisfactory outcomes,” said Robyn Tarnofsky, the director of the clinic.

However, before such a petition can be filed in the federal court, the petitioner must pursue and exhaust all available state law remedies. This means that if you want to challenge a conviction or a sentence, you must pursue your right of appeal under Idaho law. This may be accomplished in two ways: (1) the direct right of appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, or (2) by filing a petition for post-conviction relief in the state district court followed by an appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court. Only after you have fully pursued the available state law remedies will you be eligible to pursue a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Just a year after Ms. Eldrich ended her marriage, divorce in Connecticut changed dramatically, opening the way to more pro se representation. In 1973, the Legislature passed a law allowing no-fault divorces, so a married couple who had decided to break up did not have to prove it was someone's fault. That eliminated the sometimes difficult process of showing that one party had committed adultery or had been intolerably cruel, which were two of the reasons spouses could give for seeking a divorce.
The ABA conducted a research survey several years ago in Maricopa County, Ariz. and found that “the primary reason self-help litigants gave for going forward without a lawyer was the belief that they could navigate the system and obtain their desired outcome on their own.” Id. at 4; citing: A Report on Self-Help Law: Its Many Perspectives, ABA, 1985.
(function(){"use strict";function s(e){return"function"==typeof e||"object"==typeof e&&null!==e}function a(e){return"function"==typeof e}function l(e){X=e}function u(e){G=e}function c(){return function(){r.nextTick(p)}}function f(){var e=0,n=new ne(p),t=document.createTextNode("");return n.observe(t,{characterData:!0}),function(){t.data=e=++e%2}}function d(){var e=new MessageChannel;return e.port1.onmessage=p,function(){e.port2.postMessage(0)}}function h(){return function(){setTimeout(p,1)}}function p(){for(var e=0;et.length)&&(n=t.length),n-=e.length;var r=t.indexOf(e,n);return-1!==r&&r===n}),String.prototype.startsWith||(String.prototype.startsWith=function(e,n){return n=n||0,this.substr(n,e.length)===e}),String.prototype.trim||(String.prototype.trim=function(){return this.replace(/^[\s\uFEFF\xA0]+|[\s\uFEFF\xA0]+$/g,"")}),String.prototype.includes||(String.prototype.includes=function(e,n){"use strict";return"number"!=typeof n&&(n=0),!(n+e.length>this.length)&&-1!==this.indexOf(e,n)})},"./shared/require-global.js":function(e,n,t){e.exports=t("./shared/require-shim.js")},"./shared/require-shim.js":function(e,n,t){var r=t("./shared/errors.js"),i=(this.window,!1),o=null,s=null,a=new Promise(function(e,n){o=e,s=n}),l=function(e){if(!l.hasModule(e)){var n=new Error('Cannot find module "'+e+'"');throw n.code="MODULE_NOT_FOUND",n}return t("./"+e+".js")};l.loadChunk=function(e){return a.then(function(){return"main"==e?t.e("main").then(function(e){t("./main.js")}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):"dev"==e?Promise.all([t.e("main"),t.e("dev")]).then(function(e){t("./shared/dev.js")}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):"internal"==e?Promise.all([t.e("main"),t.e("internal"),t.e("qtext2"),t.e("dev")]).then(function(e){t("./internal.js")}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):"ads_manager"==e?Promise.all([t.e("main"),t.e("ads_manager")]).then(function(e){t("./ads_manager/main.js")}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):"publisher_dashboard"==e?t.e("publisher_dashboard").then(function(e){undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):"content_widgets"==e?Promise.all([t.e("main"),t.e("content_widgets")]).then(function(e){t("./content_widgets.iframe.js")}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):void 0})},l.whenReady=function(e,n){Promise.all(window.webpackChunks.map(function(e){return l.loadChunk(e)})).then(function(){n()})},l.installPageProperties=function(e,n){window.Q.settings=e,window.Q.gating=n,i=!0,o()},l.assertPagePropertiesInstalled=function(){i||(s(),r.logJsError("installPageProperties","The install page properties promise was rejected in require-shim."))},l.prefetchAll=function(){t("./settings.js");Promise.all([t.e("main"),t.e("qtext2")]).then(function(){}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe)},l.hasModule=function(e){return!!window.NODE_JS||t.m.hasOwnProperty("./"+e+".js")},l.execAll=function(){var e=Object.keys(t.m);try{for(var n=0;n=c?n():document.fonts.load(u(o,'"'+o.family+'"'),a).then(function(n){1<=n.length?e():setTimeout(t,25)},function(){n()})}t()});var w=new Promise(function(e,n){l=setTimeout(n,c)});Promise.race([w,m]).then(function(){clearTimeout(l),e(o)},function(){n(o)})}else t(function(){function t(){var n;(n=-1!=y&&-1!=g||-1!=y&&-1!=v||-1!=g&&-1!=v)&&((n=y!=g&&y!=v&&g!=v)||(null===f&&(n=/AppleWebKit\/([0-9]+)(?:\.([0-9]+))/.exec(window.navigator.userAgent),f=!!n&&(536>parseInt(n[1],10)||536===parseInt(n[1],10)&&11>=parseInt(n[2],10))),n=f&&(y==b&&g==b&&v==b||y==x&&g==x&&v==x||y==j&&g==j&&v==j)),n=!n),n&&(null!==_.parentNode&&_.parentNode.removeChild(_),clearTimeout(l),e(o))}function d(){if((new Date).getTime()-h>=c)null!==_.parentNode&&_.parentNode.removeChild(_),n(o);else{var e=document.hidden;!0!==e&&void 0!==e||(y=p.a.offsetWidth,g=m.a.offsetWidth,v=w.a.offsetWidth,t()),l=setTimeout(d,50)}}var p=new r(a),m=new r(a),w=new r(a),y=-1,g=-1,v=-1,b=-1,x=-1,j=-1,_=document.createElement("div");_.dir="ltr",i(p,u(o,"sans-serif")),i(m,u(o,"serif")),i(w,u(o,"monospace")),_.appendChild(p.a),_.appendChild(m.a),_.appendChild(w.a),document.body.appendChild(_),b=p.a.offsetWidth,x=m.a.offsetWidth,j=w.a.offsetWidth,d(),s(p,function(e){y=e,t()}),i(p,u(o,'"'+o.family+'",sans-serif')),s(m,function(e){g=e,t()}),i(m,u(o,'"'+o.family+'",serif')),s(w,function(e){v=e,t()}),i(w,u(o,'"'+o.family+'",monospace'))})})},void 0!==e?e.exports=a:(window.FontFaceObserver=a,window.FontFaceObserver.prototype.load=a.prototype.load)}()},"./third_party/tracekit.js":function(e,n){/**
Lauren Sudeall Lucas is the Faculty Director of the Center for Access to Justice at the Georgia State University College of Law. She serves on the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants and on the board of directors of the Southern Center for Human Rights. She has received research funding for a study regarding the civil legal needs of indigent criminal defendants from the Charles Koch Foundation.
Before I answer the essence of your question, the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure states and requires that “The request for admissions shall be preceded by the following statement printed in capital letters in a font size at least as large as that in which the request is printed: “FAILURE TO SERVE A WRITTEN ANSWER OR OBJECTION WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ORCP 45 B WILL RESULT IN ADMISSION OF THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS.” I will presume that you complied with that requirement when you submitted your requests for admissions as the rule states that it “shall” be done in this manner. Sometimes things can sound nit picky but if a party fails to do something that it is required to do and fails to do so, it gives the opposing side ammunition to attack the relief you are requesting that you feel you are entitled to. You are correct, since the opposing side failed to answer your request(s), you now need to file a “Motion to Determine Sufficiency”. You should advise the court in your motion that the opposing party has failed to answer your requests and ask the court to order that each of the matters are admitted. A motion to determine sufficiency is generally geared toward answers that were submitted but possibly not sufficient and parties then move the court to order the party to provide a “sufficient” answer, but since the opposing party failed to provide any answers in your case, you should advise the court of this fact in your motion and that you would like the court to issue an order deeming the matters as admitted. I presume when you say that the opposing party “failed to answer” you mean that the party didn’t answer at all. There is a difference between “failing to answer” and submitting an insufficient answer. Be clear to the court which one it is, if the party failed to answer, so state it, but if the party provided answers that were insufficient, you need to address it in that manner and ask the court to order the opposing party to provide sufficient answers. Be sure to include a copy of the requests for admissions that you served as an exhibit to your motion for the court’s ready reference. Also, under Oregon’s Rule 46A(4) you may apply for an award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.
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.
Comment offers the first publicly available empirical assessment of several pro se reform efforts thus far. The analysis shows that these pro se reforms have not succeeded in improving pro se litigants’ win rates at trial. This Comment thus suggests that, while pro se reforms likely have important merits, such as enabling a more thorough and dignified hearing process for pro se litigants, on average these reforms do not alter the final outcomes of the litigation process.
Designed to be distributed by County Clerks and Superior Court Administrators’ offices.  This document addresses civil actions in superior court and outlines how to start an  action against someone else, how to defend yourself from an action, terms you need to know, what to wear and how to act in court and a list of helpful phone numbers and websites.
Courts have implemented a number of different programs and procedures to assist pro se litigants. For example, the 2011 FJC Survey revealed that twenty-five districts allowed pro se law clerks to directly communicate with pro se litigants about their cases; thirty-five districts allowed pro se litigants to electronically access information about the docket sheet, pleadings, and more through case management/electronic case filing (CM/ECF); nineteen disseminated information about programs for pro se litigants outside the court, such as in public libraries; and ten provided software specifically designed to help pro se litigants prepare their proceedings.66 These types of reforms mirror those suggested by the Supreme Court in Turner:67 for example, providing notice to pro se civil litigants of important issues affecting the case and using forms to solicit relevant information. Likewise, giving access to the docket sheet and pleadings through CM/ECF and allowing communication with a pro se law clerk somewhat fulfills the Supreme Court’s suggestion to increase efforts to provide pro se litigants with notice. The pro se software typically helps simplify filing and participation in civil proceedings, similar to forms that would solicit relevant information.
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.
Do I have a basic understanding of the required court documents? Mounds of documents can be very intimidating to a lot of people, legal officials included. Parents considering pro se representation should become familiar with various types of family law documents. Again, become friendly with the court clerk and ask for his or her help identifying the correct forms, where to get them, when they are due, and how they should be submitted. 
Table 3C relies on the same data but considers the win rates of different types of litigants based on the total number of policies that the district court has implemented rather than which particular policies the court has implemented. Table 3C thus seeks to test the slightly different hypothesis that there may be a cumulative benefit from implementing these policies even if none is individually impactful.

A lawyer can get vehement, though, when he himself gets strangled by the judge. In Morris v. Schnoor, the appellant attorney is quoted as saying that "When the judiciary acts as the b_tch for complainant, we get rulings like this" (the appellate opinion reproduces the actual b-word). Just don't expect much boldness when a lawyer litigates your case.


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."
How does it work? I attended a meeting with a group of advocates from across Pennsylvania, and Steve Gold, the attorney who designed this Pro Se, told us about filing our own lawsuits. Once I learned how to use it, I was ready for action, I couldn't wait to do my first case. My success rate since I began to use the Pro Se form has been 100%: all public accommodations served with papers under the Pro Se method have made their places accessible.

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.


As Clerk of Court for the District of Idaho, my deputy clerks and I are willing to assist you with questions regarding the Local Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District of Idaho as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Criminal Rules of Procedure. However, by law we cannot answer questions of a legal nature. Do not hesitate to call on us regarding a procedural matter.
Make plain-English information about how to navigate in the court available to the public. All court procedures can be explained in plain English. Nolo Press, other self-help law publishers and the Maricopa County Superior Court have proven that this is so. Unfortunately the courts systematically refuse to inform self-represented litigants about available private-sector publications, apparently on the ground that they don't want to be seen endorsing them. Fair enough. But the courts should then follow the lead of the Maricopa County Superior Court and make plain-English guides available to all.
The above is general legal and business analysis. It is not "legal advice" but analysis, and different lawyers may analyse this matter differently, especially if there are additional facts not reflected in the question. I am not your attorney until retained by a written retainer agreement signed by both of us. I am only licensed in California. See also avvo.com terms and conditions item 9, incorporated as if it was reprinted here.
While the outcome gap between pro se and represented litigants does not necessarily prove that lack of access to counsel causes poor case outcomes for pro se litigants, it is easy to see how it motivates proponents of pro se court reforms or civil Gideon. Table 2C suggests that, whenever one of the parties is proceeding pro se, the likelihood that any final judgment will be registered for the other party is overwhelming. If one believes that a meaningful portion of pro se litigants have important rights that they are seeking to vindicate in court, it is likely they are not receiving adequate remedies under the current legal system.85
Limit the scope of trial. Pursuant to federal and state rules of evidence and procedure, courts are responsible for establishing ground rules to efficiently manage and regulate trial practice and trial testimony. This is especially important when trial involves a pro se party because the lack of substantive and procedural knowledge can create an ever-changing, and often ever-expanding, litigation framework. Accordingly, trial counsel should make use of pretrial briefing mechanisms—including motions in limine and bench memoranda—to limit the issues for trial. Pretrial briefing affords the pro se litigant the opportunity to have his or her voice heard on the issues while efficiently framing the matters for trial. If the rules of court do not impose page limits on the particular mode of briefing being used, trial counsel should ask the court to set a page limit to help focus the discussion. In addition, trial counsel should consider asking the court to allow the parties to submit in advance their questions for direct examination to both limit improper objections and further focus the testimony on relevant, admissible evidence.
Congress also has a role. In extreme cases it has the power to remove judges, of course. But short of that, it can at least underscore the seriousness of the rights it established for litigants in the Judiciary Act. Whether through binding or nonbinding language on the topic, Congress can make clear that complaints about violations of the rights of pro se litigants must be taken very seriously by judicial councils.
litigant’s interest in personal liberty, not the general interests of litigants in vindicating legal rights, was the critical question in determining whether the litigant has a right to counsel.39 Accordingly, in a blow to civil Gideon activists, the Supreme Court held that there was a “presumption that there is no right to appointed counsel in the absence of at least a potential deprivation of physical liberty,” signaling the Supreme Court’s reluctance to extend the right to counsel to civil litigants.40 Lassiter remains good law.
But that shouldn't make a difference, as all cases are to be judged on their merits, not by the persons who bring them. By law, every federal judge must take an oath affirming to "administer justice without respect to person, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich," and to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
IAALS recently released two new reports focused on the experiences of self-represented litigants in the family court system.  Cases Without Counsel: Research on Experiences of Self-Representation in U.S. Family Court which explores the issues from the litigants' perspective.  Cases Without Counsel: Our Recommendations after Listening to the Litigants outlines recommendations for courts, legal service providers, and communities to best serve self-represented litigants in family cases.
I am a member iPod this website and a Pro Se litigant. I do not feel pitted against opposing counsel at all. I have four attorneys representing defendants in my suit. I can clearly see those ethically defending their clients to the best of their ability and I also see two of them reverting to sneaky tricks, underestimating me as a Pro Se litigant and not following the law. The articles on this site that you seem to think are misguiding people are very helpful in understanding the behavior of those, less ethical, of your colleagues than you may be! This is a resource for people with sixth amendment rights. If you would like to represent me, pro bono, in my multi million dollar defamation suit, please contact me!
Whether you are a party to a lawsuit, a person representing yourself in a lawsuit, or an attorney representing a party in a lawsuit, you are subject to the rules of procedure for any court in which your case is filed. The federal courts are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.) and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Fed. R. Cr. P.) as well as other rules of procedure regarding other areas such as evidence, appeals, etc. No matter what document or procedure you are involved with, you must follow the particular rule or rules that govern the matter.
Taking part in a recent ribbon cutting in Brooklyn are, from left, Lynn Kelly, executive director of the City Bar Justice Center; Debra L. Raskin, New York City Bar Association president; Chief Judge Carol B. Amon, Eastern District of New York; Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom; and Nancy Rosenbloom, director of the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project. 
As mentioned, the decision to proceed as a pro se defendant will almost always be more risky than working with a lawyer. If you represent yourself, your success will depend on your own knowledge of the law and whether you can argue your claim in the proper way. At the very least you may wish to request an initial consultation with a criminal lawyer to determine what type of representation best suits your situation. You should not take any chances at all if you are unsure about your own abilities.      

Table 3C tells a similar story as Tables 3A and 3B. Although there is some variation in the win rates, there is no discernable pattern. Pro se litigants do not consistently have better case outcomes in districts that have implemented more policies aimed at improving the lot of pro se litigants. Instead, the win rates of pro se litigants deviate only a couple of percentage points from the overall average win rates for pro se litigants even in districts that have implemented three, four, or more of the policies considered in this Comment.
Use small claims court techniques in bench trials. Most states have revamped court rules and procedures to accommodate non-lawyers very well in one place: their small claims courts. Small claims cases are not simple; many are conceptually difficult. (Lawyers have been willing to accommodate the small claims court system because those cases present little or no potential for fees.)
Laws and organizations charged with regulating judicial conduct may also affect pro se litigants. For example, The State of California Judicial Council has addressed through published materials the need of the Judiciary to act in the interests of fairness to self-represented litigants.[9] The California rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits, even if resolution requires excusing inadvertence by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal. The Judicial Council justifies this position based on the idea that "Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referee ... A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits."[10] It suggests "the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial" and says "There is only one reported case in the U.S. finding a judge's specific accommodations have gone too far." The committee notes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 56 on summary judgments notes that "Many courts take extra care with pro se litigants, advising them of the need to respond and the risk of losing by summary judgment if an adequate response is not filed. And the court may seek to reassure itself by some examination of the record before granting summary judgment against a pro se litigant."[11]
×