I think it is important to clarify the specific issue that Ms. Monica Fore raises in regard to the expectation that pro se litigants must be held to the same standards as attorneys.
Such a standard is not equitable to pro se litigants first of all because pro se litigants do not get the same respectful treatment that attorneys receive. Frequently, judges don't even listen to what pro se litigants have to say, simply by virtue of the fact that they are what they are: i.e. pro se litigants.
If you go to trial court representing yourself, even though you have a perfectly correct, constitutionally supported right to do so it is often, if not always, a way to lose automatically. Judges simply don't like self represented litigants no matter who they are. If you prepare effectively as a self represented party, then Judges see you as arrogant and defiant of authority. If you don't prepare effectively, then you are disrespectful of the trial court process because you didn't. Either way, you lose.
So that is the first strike against you.
Second, you can take full responsibility and read The Connecticut Practice Book (a compendium of the rules of court) to be prepared for what is going on in the courtroom, but that will not actually give you sufficient information. The Connecticut Practice Book is extremely difficult to understand and interpret--and I say that as a College Graduate with a humanities degree.
What Ms. Monica Fore is asking us to consider, and the Supreme Court as well, is how are folks without high school degrees going to figure this out!
The Connecticut Practice Book should be rewritten so that it is clear and understandable to the average person who is coming in for services at the Judicial Branch.
Why does the Connecticut Judicial Branch skew its practices and its publications in such a way that it benefits solely attorneys, and then say self represented parties have to catch up to them ready or not?
Furthermore, there are many trial court policies and procedures that are not mentioned in The Connecticut Practice Book but which are a standard aspect of legal practice. For example, Ms. Fore mentioned to me what is called an "Offer of Proof" where you indicate to the Court why a piece of evidence that was rejected as a full exhibit should be accepted.
So there are a great many trial court traditions, understandings, practices that are not in any book a self represented party has access to, and therefore, holding such a party to the standard of knowing as much about them as an attorney who has often spent years absorbing them all would clearly be an injustice.
It is also true that attorneys have access to professional meetings and trainings, and also various data bases through their professional offices which self represented parties clearly cannot share.
In the interests of justice, therefore, it seems to me reasonable, that there should be a way to adjust trial court practices so that attorneys and also self represented parties can operate on a level playing field.
Thus far, what the Connecticut Judicial Branch has done is simply complain about the fact that there is self representation, as if to say perhaps we should make self representation illegal. And, of course, judges kind of do that by making the experience of representing yourself so unpleasant and so unjust. But they have not acted to make sure that self represented parties get a fair shake by adjusting policies, procedures, practices, and informative materials so that they provide self represented parties improved access to justice.
On another note, I did want to mention that, indeed, we do have more litigants deciding to represent themselves despite the well known dangers involved in doing so. I believe the number in Connecticut is like 79% self represented or some high number like that.
To me, this situation exists because there has been such malfeasance on the part of attorneys, such blatant corruption and wrong doing, that the legal profession has totally lost credibility in regard to its involvement in family matters. The responsibility for correcting this situation lies with the legal profession itself and the timeframe for getting the job done is none too soon given the fact that the number of those who choose to represent themselves inside family court continues to rise.
By this logic, we should let anyone perform surgery just as long as we write E-Z to read instruction manuals. Just because you're pro se does NOT entitle you to special treatment. Maybe we should just let pro ses take breaks when they want, or hey- here's an idea- let THEM be the judge, for a real trial by your peers. There's a TON of information for pro ses including videos guides etc. you obviously don't work and you say you're a Harvard grad: go to the law library and read. Oh yeah, you're too lazy for that you'd rather sit around and play the victim and complain to your demented circle of misfits and PRETEND to be a lawyer. Loser.
ReplyDeleteWell, folks, I guess this comment lets us know exactly the kind of thinking we are dealing with. The fact is that working as an attorney is not the same thing as working as a surgeon. that is comparing apples and oranges. There is no constitutional right to work as a surgeon, but there is a constitutional right to work as an attorney. To be honest, many of us do believe that jury trials in family court is the answer to the problem of family court corruption. Do you have a problem with that? I think what Monica Fore is talking about are rules that are not on the record, ways of doing things among attorneys that are not on the record. The video guides are normal for simple matter such as how to file an appearance. Enough said! I think it is troubling that with your comments and attitudes you show so little compassion for protective mothers who have suffered so greatly and endured so much, yet continue to have the courage to stand up for themselves and for their children.
ReplyDelete