THE TRIALS, TRIBULATIONS AND HEROISM OF THE SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT!

Recently, I had the experience of watching a self represented party defend himself during a court hearing.  In my day, I was also a self represented party for around two years, so I understand what it is like.  Yet watching someone else play that role was still a real eye opener. 

The most important observation I had was to see three highly intelligent, well trained, extremely experienced individuals participate in a process that was clearly damaging to everyone involved--the parents and the children.  Every member of the family involved in this case, it was clear to me, would ultimately end up with severe scars as a result of what was happening that day, and throughout the extended legal proceedings in the case. 

 

But don't let me get ahead of myself.  First, allow me to tell you some of the initial lessons I learned from the experience.

 

SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE THE TRUE HEROES OF THE COURT ROOM

 

Again, as self represented parties we know that we are going to lose, yet we choose to represent ourselves anyway. 

 

Why?  

 

There are some very practical reasons for representing ourselves, the first being that we absolutely do not have any money left to pay an attorney to represent us.  The second most common reason is that even if we did have the money, no one would represent us anyway because we have become courtroom poison. 

 

You have to understand these attorneys, let alone the judges, are all in their little club, and they all gossip with one another, and if their little group has decided they are going to make you miserable and make sure you lose and ruin any attorney who tries to do it differently, that is exactly what they will do.  

Other than that, we do what we do because we believe in the justness of our cause. 

 

Self represented parties essentially make the heroic last stands.  We are Custer and his men and we know that the Indians are going to kill every last one of us.  We are Massada!  We are the Alamo! 

 

Yet, even though we know we will lose, nonetheless, many of us work very hard to learn court rules and the law so that we can conduct ourselves respectably.  I know I spent hours reading up on what I had to do in terms of presenting exhibits, developing an argument, responding with my objections, and examining witnesses.  I know many other people who do the same. 

 

And for what?  Why are we doing all those hours and hours of studying and hard work?  Because we are heroic and we are fighting for what is right, good and true, even though we know that the bottom line is that we will never win.

 

SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE MEMBERS OF THE CLUB

 

In these recent court proceedings where I was observing, the day started with the usual introductions and the swearing in of the parties and attorneys that they agreed to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God."(yes, I know, very funny!!!) 

 

Once that was done the judge announced that it was good to see old friends again. 

 

Of course, we all know that my friend the self represented party wasn't included as one of these old friends.  I mean, self represented parties generally come in for their court proceedings, and then, once they are trashed completely, they leave and the judge doesn't get to see them again.  They don't get "old"! 

 

No, the only ones that get old are the attorneys who keep coming back for say thirty years or more. 

 

What that means is that the self represented party will most likely be representing himself for the first and last time in that court.  The opposing attorney, on the other hand, most likely has been in that courtroom for years and years and will continue on that way. 

 

So while the self represented party is a total beginner and just learning to act as an attorney, the opposing side can apply all those legal skills in his or her sleep.  So right away you have a complete imbalance of power. 

 

Plus, these folks have seen each other at meetings, spent time with one another on committees and commissions; they have loads of history. 

 

In my case, the judge had actually provided legal representation to my custody evaluator and so they had this personal and professional relationship going.  So already they trust one another ten times more than they trust you as a self represented party--you will never be designated as an "old friend."

 

SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE HONORARY MEMBERS OF THE CRAZY CLUB

 

In family court, the most frequently used method to trash the designated losing party is to call that party crazy.  This means that self-represented parties are pretty much guaranteed to end up being called crazy since they are the losing parties.  That means they end up being honorary members of the crazy club. 

 

The crazy club, in case you didn't know, is the very special club for the mentally ill.  Mental illness is a disability and normally the fact that a person has a disability is not a reason to deny such people their constitutional and human rights.  However, in the court room, the fact that a person has a mental health disability is equivalent to stating that a person is a subhuman monster. 

 

So when the court decides that you are crazy, that is the end of any opportunity you might have to be treated fairly.

 

Usually, of course, most self represented parties aren't mentally ill at all.  They are simply highly principled individuals who are insisting upon their rights.  So what can the Court do when they have no evidence that these self-represented parties have any mental illness and the psychological test results indicate they have no mental illness and mental health professionals support the fact that they have no mental illness? 

 

They will just hint that a mental illness exists even though there is no evidence for one.  The judge, or the opposing attorney will say of the self represented party, we know that there is some mental health problem, but we haven't yet put our fingers on it yet.  The self represented party has some undiagnosed disorder.  Wink!  Wink!  Wink! 

 

SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES COULD BE WINNING, BUT YOU'D NEVER KNOW

 

It is amazing how many details you notice when you are observing and you are not representing yourself. For one thing, as I watched my friend, it became clear to me that every time he presented a series of irrefutable facts in support of his position, the judge would immediately interrupt loudly and start berating him for some minor violation of court rules, and the opposing attorney would jump up with objection after objection, many of them with a very trivial basis. 

 

If they didn't jump up and down and make a lot of noise in response to my self represented friend's strong defense, the judge and the attorney would lapse into silence and stop responding altogether.  The judge would stop making any eye contact with my friend and would start staring fixedly at the opposite side of the courtroom. 

 

Another tactic I saw the judge employ when my friend was making too many points successfully was to ask highly technical questions about court rules which would overwhelm even an experienced attorney. 

 

Then another approach I saw was when the judge stated that a particular legal procedure my friend used was incorrect when I happen to know very well that it was correct.  I had that happen to me frequently during my time as a self represented party.  The judge had no problem making procedure up right on the spot.

 

Another tactic was when the opposing attorney drilled my friend with a whole lot of peripheral and irrelevant questions to the point where he completely lost track of what he was doing! 

 

Judges will never, ever rule in favor of a self represented party if they can help it.  So, you might have a series of motions, one after another, and if those motions are from the self represented party, they will be denied. 

 

Also, while all this is going on the judge, the marshals, the court reporter are all smirking when the self represented party is looking at his notes, or searching through papers trying to find his exhibits.  It's all really amusing to them.

 

Meanwhile, the judge is like, "Take your time, Mr. So and So.  Don't let me rush you."

 

SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ASKED TO BELIEVE TOTAL NONSENSE

 

In the case of my friend, at one point in the proceedings, he tried to prevent hearsay testimony from coming into the record.  However, the judge allowed that testimony stating that it wasn't being considered in regard to its truth, but only as an indication of how a person relevant to the case felt.  Yet I am sure every last one of us in that courtroom knew the judges' statement wasn't true, and that the hearsay evidence was being considered for its truth. 

 

With me, I was asked to believe that my children who are disabled and that the ADA Coordinator had verified were disabled, were, in fact, NOT disabled. 

 

There is other kind of nonsense we are supposed to believe, for instance, that a parent who has never harmed his or her child ever, who has never sexually molested the child, has never hit the child, has never been criticized in raising the child, all of a sudden requires supervised visitation, or could even end up being barred from seeing the child permanently without any logical justification.

 

AND THEN THE FINAL, MOST BRUTAL CUT OF ALL

 

If there is one thing that comes out most clearly from spending a day in court watching a self represented party, it is that no matter what the facts of a case are they can be spun either in favor of the one side or the other at will. 

 

It is clear that what occurred in my case and also in the case of my friend is that the judge and the attorneys had made an advanced decision in regard to who was going to win. 

 

We spent hours in the courtroom that day, undergoing a ritual that already had a foregone conclusion, going through the motions, pretending that the judge was listening and carefully considering the evidence, when in fact he was not.  His mind was already made up. 

 

Still, that wasn't all in terms of the damage.  Then came the most brutal part of this process when my friend had to sit silently as the judge gave him a long lecture full of lies and misrepresentations pretty much stating that everything that had happened wrong in the case was his fault.   

That is where the self represented party's real heroism comes in, when he or she has to face that kind of outright disrespect and wrongdoing in silence, while still maintaining a semblance of dignity and outer calm. 

 

Isaiah 53:7  "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth."

CONCLUSIONS: 

What I found absurd in this whole situation is the fact that the professionals in that courtroom were applying skills that were developed hundreds of years ago to the present situation.  We don't use leaches to cure physical ills any longer, we don't put people in the stocks.  So why are we using a legal approach that is more appropriate to prior centuries instead of living in the present and using the knowledge that we have today?  We don't put victims of polio in iron lungs; we inoculate them.  Why are we doing the same when it comes to divorce?  That is, acting like we are living in an era when we burn people at the stake?

We now know as the result of family systems therapy that when you harm one member of the family, you harm them all.  You can't just haul one person out of the family and trash that person with trumped up accusations and think that every member of that family will not suffer for that in the end.

Why can't we think that?  Because we live in the modern world and we have made major discoveries about how the human brain works long since the  legal system developed theories about hearsay.

Now, it is all very nice that the attorneys and the judge in this case cited a psychiatrist who conducted an evaluation.  However, it is important to note that the concepts upon which that psychiatrist based his report were only developed in the last 50 years and we still have a long way to go in terms of insights and understandings.  But one thing I do know since I have observed the field of psychiatry very closely over the years, and that is, I don't think that the concepts of psychiatry were intended to destroy the relationships between parents and children, or to subject parents to ritual torture in the courtroom.

These legal professionals want to have their cake and eat it to.  They want to use legal weapons invented in the medieval age to eviscerate fit parents and to use children as informants against those parents, a role that will scar them for life.  And they want the right to use the modern weapons of neurobiology to do it.  No ethical mental health professional would agree to participate in such a proceedings.  Why?  Because the mental health profession is a healing profession which has the obligation to do no harm, not to take sides in a legal proceeding which they know is antithetical to the physical and mental health of every family member involved.

I can't say that I have all the answers to the problems raised by divorce.  It's just that the one thing I do know is that what is going on and what I observed that day in the courtroom with my self represented friend is fundamentally unjust and should not be happening.  I also said to myself, here you have three highly intelligent legal professionals, all college educated and with three additional years of law school, and they can't figure out that what they are doing is absolutely appalling?  What's the matter with these people?  It's not exactly rocket science.  I'm not sure what, but we need to do something to stop this.

PANAMA PUBLISHING SERIES FOR SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES!

Panama Publishing writes detailed, informative, litigant friendly guidebooks on how to navigate your way through the family court system.  You may wish to look them up at:

www.panama-publishing.com

PROPOSED PILOT PROGRAM FOR CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL SYSTEM WOULD ALLOW ATTORNEYS TO OFFER LIMITED SCOPE REPRESENTATION OR "UNBUNDLING"!

At the Annual 2012 meeting of judges in Connecticut, Judge Chase Rogers expressed concern about the rising number of self represented parties in the judicial system today.  Right now, at least 85% of cases in family court have one or both parties representing him or herself. 

 

Like many other States around the country, Connecticut has been trying to adjust the way it does business in order to respond to this situation. 

 

For example, most courthouses in Connecticut have a Court Service Center available for self-represented parties where there are computers, fax and copy machines, as well as a telephones which they can use free of charge.  Some of these Centers have clerks working there who are available to provide litigants with court forms and answer basic questions about how to navigate your way around the court system. The larger court service centers have regular hours where marshalls are available to take papers that need to be served. 

 

In addition, some courthouses have volunteer attorneys available once a week to answer questions on a first come, first serve basis. 

 

Also, the Connecticut Judicial Website has tutorials and videos to keep self represented parties informed about some of the more basic procedures they are required to follow, i.e. information on how to file an appearance. 

 

Now, if judges approve the new addition to The Connecticut Practice Book proposed for this year, Section (b) of Rule 3-8 Appearance for Represented Party, the Chief Court Administrator will be authorized to establish a pilot program for Limited Scope Representation (or what is informally known as "unbundling") by attorneys in one or more judicial districts throughout the state. 

 

What is Limited Scope Representation?  This is a concept originally attributed to UCLA law Professor Forrest S. Mosten who, in 2000, wrote the book "Unbundling Legal Services:  A Guide to Delivering Legal Services a la Carte."  It consists of a method of legal representation in the United States where an attorney and client limit the scope of the attorney's involvement in a lawsuit to specific aspects of the case and leaving the remaining aspects to the client as a means to save money.

 

As with other things, when it comes to innovative practices like this, we in the State of Connecticut are somewhat slow about getting cutting edge practices such as Limited Scope Representation implemented.  Thus, according to a an article written in 2010 by Susan Cartier Liebel, "Is 'Unbundling' in Your Future?  It Better Be or You May Have No Future," "Forty-one states, including California and New Hampshire, have [already] adopted a model rule drafted by the American Bar Association" 

 

Why is this happening and why is Limited Scope Representation so popular?  According to Ms. Liebel, litigants simply cannot afford to spend lots of money on legal representation in these difficult economic times.  Not only that, the spread of information on the internet combined with a judicial system that itself provides litigants with considerable information has empowered people to the point where they want more input into what happens in their cases. 

 

Connecticut's new Limited Scope Representation laws will come with some limitations.  For example, only attorneys affiliated with this pilot program would be able to file a Limited Scope Appearance.  Attorneys will not be allowed to file limited appearances in connection to criminal or juvenile cases. 

 

And for those who are interested, this still does not constitute side by side representation where a self represented party conducts the case on an equal basis with the attorney.  In any matters for which the self represented party has legal representation, the self represented party must step aside and allow the attorney full authority. 

 

On the other hand, interestingly enough, an attorney will not be able to file a limited scope appearance until the self represented party has filed his or her appearance. 

 

The Practice Book has other suggested rule changes to accommodate limited scope representation. Such rule changes are as follows: 

 

Under Rule 1.5 Fees, Section (b), newly proposed rules require the attorney to file an appearance for the specific services he will provide and then he is required to file a Certificate of Completion once those services have been provided. 

 

Under Rule 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation, an attorney who provides limited scope representation will not have to ask permission from a judge in order to terminate his representation.  For those of us who have suffered because of attorneys who will not go away, this will be a considerable improvement!

 

Rule 3-8 Appearance For Represented Party, Section (b) gives the attorney specific instructions on how to file an appearance when providing limited scope representation stating, among other things, that the attorney in this situation will only receive copies of documents related to the matter he will be working on. 

 

Section 3-9 Withdrawal of Appearance provides details on how to file a Certificate of Completion regarding the matter for which an attorney provided limited scope representation. 

 

Under Rules of Professional Ethics 4-2 Communication With a Person Represented by Counsel, the opposing counsel is not allowed to discuss with the self-represented party any matters that will be handled for that party by an attorney under a limited scope representation agreement.

 

Rules from Chapter 4-2 Signing of the Pleading states that if an attorney assisted a self represented party in writing a pleading (ghostwriting!), that attorney is not required to sign the pleading, but there should be an acknowledgement of that attorney's assistance in the pleading. 

 

Some well known attorneys in Connecticut have already begun to take advantage of this approach.  For example, Attorney Susan Wakefield of Connecticut Legal Coaching. 

For more information on Attorney Wakefield, see the link below:

http://www.ctlegalcoaching.com/


Attorney Wakefield is an attorney with over 22 years of experience who has put together a law film with the expressed intention of assisting litigants who are representing themselves in their divorce, custody, or post-divorce matter. 

 

As she puts it, "Legal Coaching, with its unique pay-as-you-go and "A La Carte" structure makes quality legal services accessible to all individuals so they can acquire the knowledge and tools needed to navigate through the system on their own." 

 

There is also Greenwich Attorney Barbara Shea with her unbundled legal services known as "Partners-in-Law", a part of the law firm that allows people to represent themselves with some legal guidance to point them in the right direction."  Journalist Debra Cassens Weiss reports Shea as saying, "Instead of letting someone dump everything on my desk, I teach them the smart way to solve a case...The concept is based on giving clients choice and control over their legal matters."  

I would add more on contacting Attorney Barbara Shea because I do like her ideas, but she has been reprimanded by the Statewide Grievance Committee on more than one occasion.  So working with her is all at your own risk.  I don't know what to say about her history, except that I know of people who have done so much worse that she did who are walking around scott free.  People can be redeemable, but every litigant has to make up his or her own mind. 

 Finally, attorneys have raised some ethical concerns in regard to this practice.  For example, limited scope representation could allow attorneys to evade the legal consequences of malpractice by simply saying, I didn't represent the client in that area. 

 

There could be problems with communication which result in a situation where the attorney and the client are unsure of who is responsible for what aspect of the case, and then someone drops the ball on some vital area of the case as a consequence and both end up blaming the other. 

 

In terms of legal ghostwriting, if an attorney writes documents for a self represented party, this could give the self represented party an advantage in situations where judges allow self represented parties more leeway.  Proposed Connecticut Rules do require a litigant to acknowledge the assistance of an attorney, but who is to know how faithfully such rules will be followed. 

 

Despite these criticisms, with more than 40 states on board, it doesn't look like anything will be able to stop the momentum behind the movement to provide Limited Scope Representation.  Online businesses such as LegalZoom and "Ask an Attorney" websites are prospering in the busy, chaotic, fairly unregulated internet marketplace and there are no signs of them stopping any time soon. 

RELATED LINKS:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/SH-tab2.pdf

ABA White Paper,
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/legalservices/delivery/downloads/prose_white_paper.authcheckdam.pdf

COMMENT ON MS. MONICA FORE'S TESTIMONY, ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES!

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.   

NEW BARRIERS TO ACCESSING JUSTICE, SELF REPS SEE CUTBACKS IN LAW LIBRARIES!

On October 19, 2012, the Access to Justice Commission published its Annual Report consisting of 38 pages.  In its report, the Access to Justice Commission expressed particular concern regarding self represented parties and the abilility self represented parties had to obtain information necessary to pursuing their cases in Court. 

 

Recent statistics have indicated that in the State of Connecticut, 87% of parties in Family Court are self represented.  This means that there are a great many self represented parties who are in desperate need of information not only in regard to which forms to use, but also in regard to Practice Book rules and case law. 

 

It is surprising then, that in the past year, an April 9, 2012 article by Lauren Sievert of the "Middletown Press" reports that "law libraries in Connecticut have suffered major cutbaks in the last three years."  As Ms. Sievert reports about it, the situation is grim.  Two law libraries have closed since 2009.  Also, according to Judge Barbara Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer of the Judicial Branch, since 2009, eight librarians have been let go and two are on leave of absense. 

 

In addition, according to Ms. Sievert, Judge Quinn states that "the budget [for the library] spent in 2009 was $2.485 million, and the estimated budget expenditure for 2012 is $1.1 million."  This is a drastic reduction in the operating budget of the legal libraries in this State. 

 

According to Sievert, "Law Librarians help the public when they are in need of assistance in finding the materials and laws regarding their cases.  The librarians, who must have Master's Degrees in library science, can help the public print material regarding cases, draft motions and point them in the right direction to move along their cases." 

 

Of course, many attorneys have online resources, but that is not always true of self represented parties. 

 

In addition, self represented parties often need the assistance of librarians simply to define the kinds of good questions they need to ask and then to pursue the answers in their research.  This is why State Law Libraries are so valuable.  One of the most important services that the Law Libraries provide are the Pathfinders which provide vital information in regard to key issues in the law that self represented parties are likely to face.  Retired Middletown Librarian, Lawrence Cheeseman, played a major role in developing these Pathfinders. 

 

It is particularly troubling that the State has started to cut back the hours of these Law Libraries.  For example, the Hartford Law Library, probably one of the most used in the State, is closed on Thursdays and Fridays, and the Waterbury Library is closed on Wednesday.  When the Libraries start to reduce their hours, we as citizens should start to be very concerned. 

 

The mission of the Judicial Branch is to be more open and accessible to litigants; however, that is a hard goal to achieve when you are restricting access to your law libraries. 

 

As Law Libraries are faced with major cutbacks and closures, it is ironic that a recent report issued this month by Connecticut Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers proposes that most state judges receive pay raises of $45,000 over the next four years.  This would raise judicial pay in Superior Court from $147,000 per year to about $192,000 over four years, and it would then raise the pay of Supreme Court justices from $163,000 to $212,000.

 

According to David Collins of the Associated Press who initially reported on this pay raise proposal on October 18, 2012, the last pay raise for judges in the State of Connecticut was in 2007 and left them with an annual salary of $147,000.  He goes further to state, "that's the 14th highest salary level in the country for general trial court judges, but 45th in the nation when the state's high cost of living is factored in, according to the National Center for State Courts." 

 

He goes further to state that, "The average trial court judge's salary nationwide is about $137,000."  Thus, Connecticut's Salary is a little above the median.  

 

This pay raise should cost approximately $3.8 million.  Personally, I have trouble cutting the budget for the State's Law Libraries drastically by approximately $1.3 million in order to make way for pay raises for judges.  After all, don't Law Libraries benefit us a whole lot more than additional judges?  Isn't the use of law libraries on the level of teaching a man to farm rather than just giving him a handout?  Don't we save a lot more money teaching litigants to do things for themselves through Law Libraries rather than hiring more clerks and other personnel to guide them through the process so they don't clog up the court because of their lack of knowledge?

Some citizens have said that we should raise Judges' salaries higher if we want to make sure we retain the services of the highest quality of talented judges.  This is similar to the thinking we have gone along with before in the State of Connecticut, that having well paid teachers will lead to the highest quality of teachers.  Thus, salaries in the State of Connecticut for teachers are among the highest in the country.  Certainly, the proposed salary for judges of $192,000 would be well above the highest salary for judges in the nation, propelling us to first place.

However, as one commentator has stated, "There is no need for this...Keep in mind that these judges were the "talented judges" who in a 4 - 3 ruling on October 2, 2012, overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who raped a disabled woman with severe cerebral palsy, who has a functional intellectual I.Q. of a 3 year old, and who cannot verbally communicate because she didn't leave evidence of "biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing" to indicate her lack of agreement with the act.

So what is your choice in regard to this issue?  More funding for libraries, or more funding for Judges' salaries?  Let me know your opinions.

For a look at the original article about Law Libraries, see link below:
http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2012/04/09/news/doc4f822dededc18179387483.prt

For a directory of all the Legal Libraries, see link below:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/staff.htm

For the article in regard to Judges' salaries, see link below:
http://www1.salary.com/Judge-Magistrate-Salary.html

WHAT TO EXPECT AS A SELF REPRESENTED PARTY

As you may know, I am a self represented party.  This means that when I arrive at the clerk's office to ask a question, I often get a response from a clerk which goes, "I cannot provide legal advice.  If you need legal advice, go and get an attorney."  Of course, that very same clerk, asked the very same question by a person who is obviously indigent or low income, will freely hand out legal advice.  So there is a bit of a class based double standard here. 

Be that as it may, it is important for you to know that there is a long standing legal and historical basis for your right to represent yourself rooted in the sixth and fourteenth amendments.  So when the opposing attorney attempts to prevent you from representing yourself, and she will if you are in family court, you have a strong basis for defending yourself.  Once you have established your right to act as a self represented party, what can you expect from the judicial system? 

Basically, in the U.S. judicial system there are two attitudes towards self represented parties.  One attitude is that self represented parties have the money but can't be bothered to hire attorneys and so they are absolutely not entitled to any flexibility.  The other attitude is that most people would not choose to represent themselves but are doing so because they don't have the money or don't feel they can obtain a proper defense any other way.  Connecticut is one of the few states that takes the more benign attitude towards self represented parties and, at least in theory, acts accordingly.  As one judge told me, I have a legal obligation to bend over backwards in order to accommodate your needs as a self represented party."  

Still, the handout you receive as a self represented party states that, "A self-represented person must abide by the same rules of procedure and the rules of evidence as lawyers.  It is the responsibility of self represented parties to determine what needs to be done and to take the necessary action."  This is the official position of the judicial system.  

However, if the court system actually followed through on this approach literally the whole legal system would collapse, granted that over 50% of parties are self represented and fairly incompetent. 

So what gets done to incorporate the unique needs of a self represented party in court while at the same time preserving a represented party's right to a fair and impartial hearing?  First, once the judge has determined that there is a self-represented party in the proceedings, he or she may explain the process to the self represented party before proceeding.  The judge might say something like "I'm going to hear both sides of the case.  The defendant will first explain his case, and you will have a chance to respond.  Please do not interrupt the other party when he is presenting his case, etc." In other words, the judge will provide a quick overview of proper courtroom behavior for the self-represented party. 

Second, the judge might explain to the self-represented party what are the elements of the case and what is the burden of proof required in order for the self-represented party to prove his or her case.  In one situation I was in, the judge had the clerk provide a copy to me of a central ruling which described exactly what I was required to prove in my case.  He then told me he was going to call a recess in the hearing so that I could have a chance to review the case and decide whether or how I wished to proceed further. 

During a hearing with a self represented party, the judge may cut to the chase and just say "tell me what you have", or "what is your argument" so you can just state your case outright rather than present evidence or examine a witness on the stand in your stumbling and inadequate self represented party manner.  Frequently, rather than sit back passively, in a case where there is a self represented party the judge will intervene with his own questions of both you and the witnesses in order to delve into the issues and obtain more information. 

Third, particularly in family matters, the court will lower the standards in regard to evidence so that you don't have to establish a foundation for the documents you wish to submit to the court.  The other party can object, but frequently they don't since judges can make life difficult for them if they do. 

Essentially trial courts are required to accommodate the needs of self represented parties as long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights of the other side.  I'm sure that gets to be a pretty difficult line to draw, but my impression is that they interpret the line liberally.  Of course, my impression also is that judges will give you all that accommodation and flexibility in court and then return to the office and kind of knee jerk rule on the side of the represented party all in the spirit of attorney-attorney solidarity, but that may just be an impression rather than a reality.  

In accordance with a general policy throughout the judicial system in the U.S. the courts in Connecticut will accept any papers submitted by self represented parties and, at least in theory, interpret them as liberally as possible searching them diligently in order to locate anything that might represent a meritorious claim or defense.  This means that when I went to civil court, the clerk was ready to accept anything I was going to give them.  In fact, the court has a fill in the blank form with the heading "motion" where you can simply write in by hand what you are complaining about and submit it to the court for a hearing. 

However, there are limits to the court's liberality.  For example, if you miss a deadline, you miss a deadline, just the same as any other attorney.  Too bad for you.  If a motion you submit to the court requires a fee and must be delivered by a marshall, it requires a fee and must be delivered by a marshall, so don't try to avoid the requirements. 

The appellate court simply will not accept documents that are not formated properly.  However, if you ask they will give you a break and give you more time to revise them so they meet appellate court requirements.  Of course, they would give that very same break to an attorney as well.  The appellate court will try to accommodate you by giving you a free copy of their booklet "Handbook of Appellate Procedure" plus an additional free copy of their booklet with sample forms.  Also, keep in mind that there is a section of the judicial website which is devoted to providing information for self represented parties at:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/SRP/default.htm

Still, even though there is all this lip service about the rights of self represented parties, you know that if you are acting as your own counsel, you are a second or even third class citizen.  The court will take advantage of the fact that you don't know the law to work injustice.  When it came to one of my motions, I had to submit a few "Requests for a Hearing" before the court would schedule my motion for a hearing.  This would never happen to an attorney.  Attorneys can just call in and demand a continuance on a court hearing and get one.  Self represented parties have to go through a song and dance for a continuance.  Attorneys can meet the judge in the hallway and have a nice chat.  You cannot.  So don't be naive.  Yes, you are not a lawyer, but you can still make your way through the system and achieve decent results if you keep your cool and follow procedure.  I will always believe that a self represented party who is committed, although he or she does not have the skills or connections of a lawyer, will always outdo an attorney who doesn't give a sh_t, and unfortunately most of them don't give a sh_t.

One point I would like to make is that as you represent yourself, do not spend your time on your emotions.  The point is, what is the law, and is what you are requesting in compliance with the law.  Nothing else matters.  If you become emotional and strident, and if you act on the basis that the injustice you are enduring in court is so severe that you have a right to circumvent protocol, you could end up being marginalized, at which point the court will automatically deny anything you ask for, or you could even lose your right to self representation.

So, that is pretty much it.  Go forth and conquer...or at least, give it a try!

FILING AN APPEARANCE

Once you have hired a lawyer and signed a retainer agreement with him or her, that lawyer will then go to the Court where your case will be heard and sign an Appearance Form indicating to the court that he or she is going to represent you.  

Once that Appearance Form has been signed, this means that the lawyer has told the Court that he or she advocates on your behalf and all notices sent from the Court or by the opposing attorney should be sent to the address that he or she has provided on the form.  This means that every time you go to court regarding a matter, this attorney will step forward and speak on your behalf and negotiate agreements on your behalf.  

The law governing the appearance of an attorney on behalf of a client in the State of Connecticut is detailed in the Connecticut Practice Book 2011 Chapter 3-1 to 3-21. 

The one question I have most frequently heard regarding the appearance of an attorney is whether a self-represented party can join his or her attorney and represent him or herself along with the attorney side by side.  I looked all over the Practice Book to see if this was possible.  While I never saw this arrangement expressly denied in the Practice Book, the attorneys I spoke to simply dismissed the idea and all the clerks spoke to said it just isn't possible.  I've seen other self-represented parties give it a try before the judge, but judges don't buy it either.  So, I don't think there is any possibility of trying that approach.  

However, even though you can't join your attorney shoulder to shoulder in representing yourself, you can have multiple lawyers representing you.  This means that not only does the appearance form allow lawyers to check off a box on the appearance form indicating the lawyer is appearing "in lieu of" another attorney it also allows lawyers to indicate that they are appearing "in addition to" another attorney.  

Sometimes this allows you to assemble a dream team.  But more often than not it is a good way to get rid of a bad attorney without making yourself look bad, because you can just bring one attorney to the forefront and leave the other behind, not out of the case, but not doing anything either.  

Where this becomes relevant is when you get to your third attorney or so.  That is when the opposing side will begin the litany of "He or She has been represented by more than one attorney"--Oh my God, Call out the National Guard!!!" or worse, "He or She has been represented by several attorneys!".  Of course, in high conflict divorces, particularly with the losing side, several attorneys do get involved in the case.  Usually, the lawyer saw you were losing and didn't want to be in a losing case and quit, or the lawyer was helping the opposing side and got angry when you objected to him or her doing so, or you simply ran out of money and the attorney was unwilling to work for nothing.  It really shouldn't be held against you, but it is.  

According to their professional ethics, an attorney cannot simply walk out on you and abandon you right in the middle of your case, but they do it all the time, so don't start feeling secure as though they can't do it, because they can and they will.  In order to do so, they have to withdraw their appearance.  However, they can't do so without getting a judge's permission and so they are required to file a "Motion to Withdraw" which must be heard by the judge.  

They can't put down as a reason for their wish to withdraw something as crass as you haven't been paying them, or they don't like you or your dang case, because the Judge won't want to hear it and they don't want it public in the courtroom how much money or character matters in the legal system.  Instead, what a lawyer will put down as the basis for a Motion to Withdraw is something vague like "a breakdown of the attorney client relationship." 

My best advice here is DO NOT SHOW UP FOR THIS HEARING.  Let the attorney obtain permission from the judge to withdraw by default because you were absent from the hearing.  Otherwise, the lawyer will invent very damaging reasons for needing to withdraw and those inventions will end up being on the record and will follow you from motion to motion, hearing to hearing.  Yes, in these situations attorneys are dirty, lice ridden ugly scum.  You are right.  Now run away as fast as you can.  

Moving along, likewise, you cannot just get rid of an attorney who is representing you and has an appearance filed on your behalf by telling them something as clear and understandable as "You are fired!".  I have heard frequently of people who fired their attorneys only to have them show up unannounced at the next hearing and try to take over.  And "no", you cannot just fire your attorney and replace him or her by filing an appearance as a self represented party.  The only way you can actually get rid of your attorney is to hire another attorney and have that new attorney file an appearance "in lieu of" the old attorney and send a copy of that appearance form to the old attorney you want to get rid of.  

If you didn't start off as a self represented party and you want to replace your lawyer with yourself as a self represented party, you have to get a judge's order in order to do that.  No Fair!  Well, get used to it.  There is lots of "no fair!" in family court.  Where this situation can be difficult is when you are trying to become a self represented party and replace an idiot attorney who was sucking up to the opposing side.  Then the opposing attorney who really, really loved the old suckup will come to court on your motion to represent yourself and oppose your motion vigorously.  In that case, you could end up legally ordered to continue on with an idiot attorney you hate.  So you end up being in quite a bind.  

It's quite a mine field as I well know, having gone through it myself.  All I can say is, despite it all, I did end up being able to represent myself.  What was particularly persuasive to the judge was that even before I became a self represented party I was bypassing my lawyer and submitting my own motions, so the judge simply said, she is already doing it, she might as well keep on with it.  I am not necessarily advising you to do what I did, but it tells you how things can go in court sometimes.  

Anyway, look up Chapter 3 of the 2011 Practice Book for more information.  Also, I will provide here the URL of a video presentation prepared by the Connecticut Judicial Court explaining how to fill out an Appearance Form.  Good Luck!  

 

See the URL: http://www.jud.ct.gov/forms/Filing_an_Appearance.pdf