{"id":381,"date":"2006-12-15T15:32:50","date_gmt":"2006-12-15T19:32:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2006\/12\/15\/pro-se-pothole-awards\/"},"modified":"2006-12-15T17:15:52","modified_gmt":"2006-12-15T21:15:52","slug":"pro-se-pothole-awards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2006\/12\/15\/pro-se-pothole-awards\/","title":{"rendered":"“pro se pothole” awards?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"SantaList\"\u00a0\u00a0 There are lots of folks making lists as the year comes to an end. \u00a0The American Tort Reform Foundation has just released its always-controversial annual list of Judicial Hellholes<\/strong><\/a> — naming jurisdictions that are purportedly “America’s worst jurisdictions in which to face a lawsuit,”\u00a0because they are so plaintiff-friendly.\u00a0\u00a0The Hellhole report has provoked the usual (and, often well-deserved)\u00a0denunciations from strong detractors<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0(via Legal Blog Watch<\/em><\/a>)\u00a0<\/p>\n

Pro Se Potholes<\/strong>\u00a0 \"ExitSignArrow\"<\/p>\n

That got us thinking, yesterday, while we composed our somewhat tardy Christmas Wish List\u00a0\u00a0 If we had deep-pocket financial backing,\u00a0like\u00a0ATRA<\/a>‘s (from the insurance industry, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.), we could do a judiciary survey of our own.\u00a0 The attitude of judges and court\u00a0administrators\u00a0is often crucial\u00a0to whether\u00a0pro se<\/em> litigants, on either side of the aisle, can receive fair and effective justice.\u00a0 (e.g<\/em>., see here<\/a> and there<\/a>) If we had the resources, we would turn shlep<\/em>‘s burning spotlight on\u00a0Pro Se Potholes<\/em> — on court systems in counties or states that put obstacles in the way of litigants appearing in court without counsel, or which have failed to promulgate or put into effect guidelines or adequate training for judges and court staff, regarding the treatment of pro se<\/em> parties.<\/p>\n

\"SchoolCrossingSign\"<\/em>\u00a0Being even-handed, a financially flush shlep<\/em> might even create a list of jurisdictions that are just too darn nice to pro se<\/em> litigants.\u00a0 Other course, we’d call it\u00a0our Self-Help Special Ed<\/em> Awards, in honor of former Massachusetts Bar President Ed Ryan<\/a>, who believes courts are giving far too much help<\/a> to the self-represented.\u00a0\u00a0 We’re gonna backburner this idea for now, however.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Until Santa\u00a0fills our e-Stockings with holiday cash, we’ll have to work on an ad hoc<\/em> basis, keeping our eyes peeled for likely Pro Se<\/em> Pothole candidates, and relying on our readers to make (well-documented) suggestions.<\/p>\n

Judge Sloop gets Honorable Mention<\/em> \"judgeAngry\"\u00a0<\/p>\n

For example, thanks to a blurb in today’s HALT eJournal<\/a><\/em> (Dec. 15, 2006), we learned about Judge John R. Sloop, of the County Court in\u00a0Seminole County, Florida.\u00a0 He surely belongs on a permanent\u00a0Pro Se<\/em>\u00a0Pothole Honor Roll, despite having been removed from the bench by the Florida Supreme Court .\u00a0 Inquiry Concerning Judge John R. Sloop<\/a> (No. SC05-555, Dec. 7, 2006; 26 pp pdf., via SunEthics<\/em><\/a>, Dec. 11, 2006)\u00a0 After displaying a major anger management problem on several occasions (which he tried to justify\u00a0by claiming\u00a0an undiagnosed attention deficient hyperactivity disorder), Judge Sloop outdid himself on December 3, 2004, when, according to a Count against him:<\/p>\n

[Y]ou issued arrest warrants for approximately 11 traffic defendants who had not answered your docket call, but who were in fact, properly in an adjoining courtroom pursuant to their summonses or the direction of the judicial deputy sheriffs or bailiffs. You were informed of the circumstances, but nevertheless proceeded to have the arrest warrants carried out, and these defendants arrested, and you initially declined to release them. As a result, these traffic defendants remained in jail until their release was considered by another judge.\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The defendants (who all apparently appeared without counsel)\u00a0were handcuffed and chained by approximately 15 officers and transported to the jail where they were processed and strip searched.\u00a0\u00a0 Sloop admitted the facts and the Florida Supreme Court concluded — against the recommendation below — that he deserved to be removed from the bench.\u00a0 We like what they had to say, including:<\/p>\n