{"id":4623,"date":"2003-12-10T14:31:35","date_gmt":"2003-12-10T18:31:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2003\/12\/10\/your-honor-please-read-this-a"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:35","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:35","slug":"your-honor-please-read-this-article-on-pro-se-techniques","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/12\/10\/your-honor-please-read-this-article-on-pro-se-techniques\/","title":{"rendered":"Your Honor, Please Read This Article on Pro Se Techniques"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\"pointer<\/FONT><\/P>
\n

Judges play a crucial role in the ability of litigants to represent themselves effectively in court.  There is a major article in the newest edition of The ABA Judge’s Journal <\/EM>that looks at the judge’s role and ethical obligations, and offers important, practical suggestions for making the right — which is often the necessity — to appear pro se <\/EM>a meaningful option.  (Judicial Techniques in Cases Involving Self-Represented Litigants<\/STRONG><\/A><\/EM>, by Rebecca A. Albrecht, John M. Greacen, Bonnie Rose Hough, and Richard Zorza, Vol. 42, 1, Winter 2003).<\/FONT><\/P>
\n

The Judicial Techniques<\/EM> article aptly notes (emphasis added):<\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n

[O]ne issue of particular concern to trial court judges, and about which little has yet been written, stands out: how a judge can deal with self-represented <\/FONT>litigants in the courtroom without departing from the judicial role as a neutral, impartial decision maker. <\/FONT>Trial judges have no common understanding of the applicable ethical standards, case law, or practical techniques to use to ensure that justice <\/STRONG><\/FONT>is done in their courtrooms<\/STRONG>—and to guarantee that they have not violated or bent the rules by “leaning over the bench” to assist a floundering unrepresented <\/FONT>party. This article examines the applicable code of ethics and case law and suggests options for trial judges seeking helpful techniques.<\/P><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

The authors state that there are two basic approaches to the judge’s ethical obligations when one or more party is self-represented:<\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n

The minority position, taken by the federal courts, Alaska, Connecticut, and Minnesota (as articulated by Minnesota), is that “[a] trial court has a duty to ensure fairness to a pro se litigant by allowing reasonable accommodation so long as there is no prejudice to the adverse party.” <\/FONT><\/P>
\n

The emotional <\/STRONG>message<\/STRONG> that seems embedded in the <\/STRONG><\/FONT>majority view<\/STRONG> is that self-representation <\/FONT>is a voluntary choice, it is moreover, a foolish choice<\/STRONG><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>, and litigants who put <\/FONT>themselves in this position “deserve” <\/FONT>the consequences of that choice. . . . The emotional message in minority view<\/STRONG> opinions is that a person’s <\/FONT>lack of counsel likely is not voluntary <\/FONT>and is instead the result of a lack <\/FONT>of means—but that even if voluntary, <\/FONT>self-representation is a choice vouchsafed <\/STRONG><\/FONT>by the Constitution<\/STRONG>. The court <\/FONT>has an obligation to provide as fair a <\/FONT>process for the uninformed and unsophisticated <\/FONT>citizen as for the one who <\/FONT>can afford the most accomplished and <\/FONT>aggressive attorney.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

The article concludes:<\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n

The challenge for the trial judge dealing with unrepresented litigants is to ensure they have a full opportunity to present their cases for resolution on <\/STRONG><\/FONT>the merits.<\/STRONG> The duty of impartiality requires the judge to consider all competent evidence in the possession of the unrepresented litigant. We have suggested <\/FONT>a number of techniques to help judges accomplish that result. We believe that they are fully acceptable under both the majority and minority views of the judge’s role in these types <\/FONT>of proceedings.<\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

The article also reproduces and recommends, a Proposed Minnesota Protocol for Judges in Pro Se Cases<\/A><\/FONT>, which is the basis for a similar proposal under consideration in Idaho.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P>
\n

If you know a judge who needs a better approach to the self-represented or who would really like to improve the handling of pro se<\/EM> cases, please tell her or him about the Judicial Techniques<\/EM> article.  There is more information in the ethicalEsq?<\/EM> posting<\/A> <\/FONT>More Help for the Self-Represented<\/EM>, and on our <\/FONT>Access\/Self-Help\/Pro Se page<\/A>  <\/FONT>Thanks to Jerry Lawson at eLawyerBlog<\/A>, for pointing to this article and keeping such a good eye on issues relating to increasing access to the judicial system.<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P>
\n

-b&g thanks-<\/FONT><\/EM><\/STRONG><\/P>
\n

to<\/EM> our e-buddy Tom Mighell <\/EM><\/STRONG>at Inter Alia<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A> for his hospitality and good wishes. <\/FONT><\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Judges play a crucial role in the ability of litigants to represent themselves effectively in court.  There is a major article in the newest edition of The ABA Judge’s Journal that looks at the judge’s role and ethical obligations, and offers important, practical suggestions for making the right — which is often the necessity — to appear […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1cz","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4623"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4623\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14091,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4623\/revisions\/14091"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}