{"id":246,"date":"2006-11-02T15:41:37","date_gmt":"2006-11-02T19:41:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2006\/11\/02\/the-pro-se-nomenclature-problem\/"},"modified":"2007-03-24T13:22:06","modified_gmt":"2007-03-24T17:22:06","slug":"the-pro-se-nomenclature-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2006\/11\/02\/the-pro-se-nomenclature-problem\/","title":{"rendered":"the pro se<\/i> nomenclature problem"},"content":{"rendered":"

Things need to lighten up here at shlep<\/em> after all that Fair Use business last week.\u00a0\u00a0 It seems like a good opportunity for my alter ego Prof. Yabut<\/a> to continue\u00a0his campaign against confusing terminology (such as blog<\/a>, blawg<\/a> and blang<\/a>) and on behalf of clear, “plain”\u00a0language that is easily understood by the public, and even by lawyers.\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Frankly, there are too many terms used to denote persons who are in court as parties to a lawsuit\u00a0without a lawyer\u00a0— and<\/em>, more important, none of them seems particularly satsifying.\u00a0 As Prof. Jona Goldschmidt notes in the first footnote of a recent monograph<\/a> about assisting “self-represented litigants”:<\/font><\/div>\n

“Courts in American states on the East Coast, the Midwest, and the South generally refer to SRLs as pro se<\/em> litigants, from Latin meaning for oneself, or on one\u2019s own behalf. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.) 1236 (1999). Western state courts (e.g<\/em>., Arizona, California) refer to them as pro pers<\/em>, a shorthand version of the phrase pro persona<\/em>, meaning for one\u2019s own person., Id. at 1232, or in propria persona<\/em>, meaning in one\u2019s own person. Id. at 796. In Commonwealth countries, the phrase commonly used is “litigants in person.” <\/font><\/p>\n

To that list (pro se<\/em>, pro pers<\/em>, in propria persona, <\/em>self-represented, SRL, Litigant in Person, LIP), the Massachusetts trial court library adds “unrepresented<\/a>.”\u00a0 Here are some problems that I have with these terms:<\/font><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – pro se, pro pers, pro propria persona<\/strong><\/em>:\u00a0 Yabut Linguistic Rule of Thumb: “It it’s Latin, it’s probably not Plain English<\/em>.”\u00a0 To stick the lay public with a Latin phrase to describe their litigant category or status seems counterproductive, if your goal is to demystify the justice system and achieve understanding and inclusiveness for all.\u00a0 Also, just who decides how to pronounce the term?\u00a0[note<\/em>: my best recollection is that in Latin the vowels a, e, i, o, u,\u00a0are pronounced, respectively: ah, ay, ee, oh, oo<\/em>.] \u00a0Having competing Latinate phrases and geographic differences\u00a0makes it even more confusing.\u00a0 Unless your Pope demands you use Latin, you should eschew it.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0— “self-represented<\/strong><\/em>“:\u00a0 Yes, we should<\/em> switch to English phrases or names.\u00a0 But, the one chosen should not<\/em> be an oxymoron.\u00a0 The problem with “self-represented” is that, if the English language is properly and logically used,\u00a0you cannot represent yourself<\/em>.\u00a0 Litigants are “represented” by lawyers, and lawyers represent parties, because the lawyer is the agent or spokesperson for the client, rather than the litigant addressing the court on his or her own behalf.\u00a0 Take a look at the relevant Quick Definitions definition of represent<\/a> at OneLook <\/em>[“To serve as the official and authorized delegate or agent for. b.<\/strong> To act as a spokesperson for”], as well as Law.com Dictionary<\/em>‘s\u00a0definition of represent<\/a>\u00a0[“1) to act as the agent for another. 2) to act as a client’s attorney”].\u00a0 Therefore, it is no surprise that\u00a0OneLook<\/em>\u00a0covers 931 dictionaries and yet “no dictionaries indexed in the selected category [“all dictionaries”] contain the word self-represented<\/a><\/em>.”<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 — SRL<\/strong><\/em>: this\u00a0term stands for “self-represented litigants” and suffers from the same linguistic failings as “self-represented.”\u00a0 Worse, though, it is an acronym<\/a> and runs afoul of another primary Yabut Linguistic Rule of Thumb: “Acronyms\u00a0are virtually always confusing and ugly and to be avoided<\/em>.”\u00a0\u00a0 Having spent a couple decades trying to get lawyers to stop using acronyms, it is disheartening seeing self-help practitioners and advocates turning to “SRL,” which must indeed seem alien (and alienating) to the human beings stuck with the designation.\u00a0\u00a0 Also consider that Acronym Finder<\/a> has\u00a026\u00a0definitions for\u00a0SRL<\/a>\u00a0and their Acronym Attic<\/a>\u00a0has 127 more<\/a>, and not one of them is “self-represented litigant.”\u00a0 (Quite a few are amusing, however, if you need a diversion.)<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 — Litigant in Person<\/strong><\/em>: this term, used in the UK and Wales, seems preferable to the Latinate terms and the oxymoronic self-representation nomenclature.\u00a0 However, isn’t any human litigant acting “in Person”, especially when showing up at the courthouse?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Granted, the acronym LIP has a nice symmetry when contrasted with having a Mouthpiece, but cuteness can’t of itself get around the acronym hurdle.<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 — “unrepresented<\/strong>“:\u00a0\u00a0More precise\u00a0than self-represented,\u00a0this term rudely\u00a0characterizes the lawyerless litigant by what he or she is not, and conjures up notions of the undead and unColas, while suggesting that the good little litigant shows up with a lawyer.\u00a0\u00a0 It leaves Prof. Yabut too drained to even bother prescribing a new rule of thumb for un-words.<\/div>\n
\"ProfYabut\"\u00a0 Does Prof. Yabut or your shlep<\/em> editor have a recommendation for the pro se<\/em> nomenclature problem?\u00a0 Not really.\u00a0 I\/we do suggest, however, that the word “advocate<\/a>” might play a role in solving the problem.\u00a0\u00a0 Couldn’t the litigant appearing for herself or himself (who is, thus, advocating for himself) simply be referred to in court papers as “advocate,” or “petitioner\/plaintiff\/respondent\/defendant-advocate”?\u00a0\u00a0For example:\u00a0“John Doe<\/em>, petitioner-advocate vs. Mary Doe<\/em>, respondent-advocate.”\u00a0\u00a0 That would adequately alert those who need to know, for whatever purpose,\u00a0that there is no lawyer for a particular party.\u00a0<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 If we\u00a0want to start with\u00a0a hyphenated word when speaking of this class of litigants, such\u00a0parties are “self-advocates.” (I’m tempted to say autoadvocates<\/em>, but some people might think the term refers to car buffs.)\u00a0\u00a0 Of course, lawyers are also “advocates,” but I have no problem at all with the implication that the self-advocate is on the same level when appearing before the court as a party’s appointed lawyer-advocate.<\/div>\n
When referring informally to such litigants, who are appearing or advocating for themselves, “selfers’ works for me.\u00a0 “Self-Help” still works fine as a noun meaning preparing or advocating for yourself,\u00a0and as an adjective for\u00a0centers and resources aimed at such persons.\u00a0<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 It’s your turn<\/em>.\u00a0 Please click on the Comment link at the top of this posting and let us know your reaction to these musings and nitpicking.\u00a0 Specifically, we’d like to know how to best refer to litigants\u00a0who\u00a0appear\u00a0in court without a lawyer (as their own advocate):\u00a01) in court papers and discourse, 2) among self-help practitioners or academics, and 3) informally in discussions around the water cooler or weblog.<\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n

<\/font><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/font><\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Things need to lighten up here at shlep after all that Fair Use business last week.\u00a0\u00a0 It seems like a good opportunity for my alter ego Prof. Yabut to continue\u00a0his campaign against confusing terminology (such as blog, blawg and blang) and on behalf of clear, “plain”\u00a0language that is easily understood by the public, and even […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":437,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[900],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-viewpoint"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/437"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}