 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Pro se legal representation (/ˌproʊˈsiː/ or/ˌproʊˈseɪ/) means to argue on one's own behalf in alegal proceeding, as adefendant orplaintiff incivil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation fromcounsel or anattorney.
The termpro se comes from Latinpro se, meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves". This status is sometimes known asin propria persona (abbreviated to "pro per"). InEngland and Wales the comparable status is that of "litigant in person". In Australia and Canada, the term isself-represented litigant (SRL).
According to theNational Center for State Courts in theUnited States, as of 2006pro se litigants had become more common in bothstate courts andfederal courts.[1] Estimates of thepro se rate of family law overall averaged 67% in California, 73% in Florida's large counties, and 70% in some Wisconsin counties.[1] In San Diego, for example, the number of divorce filings involving at least onepro se litigant rose from 46% in 1992 to 77% in 2000, in Florida from 66% in 1999 to 73% in 2001.[1] California reports in 2001 that over 50% of family matters filings in custody and visitation are bypro se litigants.[2] In the U.S. Federal Court system for the year 2013 approximately 27% of civil actions, 92% of prisoner petitions and 11% of non-prisoner petitions were filed bypro se litigants.[3] Defendants inpolitical trials tend to participate in the proceedings more than defendants in non-political cases, as they may have greater ability to depart from courtroom norms to speak to political and moral issues.[4]
InFaretta v. California,[5] theSupreme Court of the United States stated:
In thefederal courts, the right of self-representation has been protected by statute since the beginnings of our Nation. Section 35 of theJudiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92, enacted by theFirst Congress and signed by PresidentWashington one day before theSixth Amendment was proposed, provided that "in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of counsel."[6]
The Court's opinion went on to hold that criminal defendants, in state courts, have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves.
However, the right to represent oneself is not absolute. Courts have the authority and duty to determine whether a particular individual is capable of representing himself or herself. InGodinez v. Moran, the Supreme Court found being competent to stand trial is equivalent to being competent to plead guilty, which further meant being competent to waive legal representation. The laterIndiana v. Edwards decision allows a court to inquire into the individual's lucidity and mental capacity, and sets competency to represent oneself as distinct from one's competency to stand trial.
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California determined that an appellant who is the defendant in a criminal case cannot refuse the assistance of counsel on direct appeal whereasFaretta v. California allows criminal defendants to proceedpro se for their own defense.
The U.S. Judiciary Act, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, addresses the rights of the self-represented litigant in several places.[7]
28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides: "In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein."
Laws and organizations charged with regulating judicial conduct may also affectpro se litigants. For example, theJudicial Council of California officially advocates treating self-represented litigants fairly.[8] The California rules allow for accommodating mistakes by apro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal, if the case is otherwise merited.[9] According to a June 2012 report from U.S. Courts, 18 of 94 federal district courts authorize use ofalternative dispute resolution (ADR) forpro ses and 11 authorize use of ADR by prisonerpro ses.[10]
Some districts of the United States federal courts (e.g., theCentral District of California) permitpro se litigants to receive documents electronically by an Electronic Filing Account (ECF), but only members of the bar are allowed to file documents electronically.[11][12] Other districts (e.g. theNorthern District of Florida) permitpro se litigants to file and receive their documents electronically by following the same local requirements as licensed attorneys for PACER NEXT GEN qualifications and approval for electronic use in particular cases; an order of the assigned judge on apro se motion showingpro se's qualifications may be required.[13] A 2011 report from theFederal Judicial Center found 37 of the 94 district courts allowpro se litigants to use ECF.[14]: 1
A longstanding and widely practiced rule prohibitscorporations from being represented by non-attorneys,[15] consistent with the existence of a corporation as a "person" separate and distinct from its shareholders, officers and employees.[16] The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that a "nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. Requiring a lawyer to represent a corporation in filing the notice does not violate the guarantee that any suitor may prosecute or defend a suit personally. A corporation is not a natural person and does not fall within the term "any suitor."[17][18][19]
Similarly, apro se litigant may not act as a class representative in aclass action and therefore apro se litigant may not bring aclass action. Furthermore, a non-attorney parent may not appear on behalf of his or her child, except to appeal the denial of social security benefits to such child.[20]
Another situation in which appearance through counsel is often required is in a case involving theexecutor or personal administrator of aprobate estate. Unless the executor or administrator is himself an attorney, he is not allowed to represent himself in matters other than the probate.[21]
Some federal courts of appeals allow unrepresented litigants to argue orally (even so nonargument disposition is still possible), and in all courts the percentage of cases in which argument occurs is higher for counseled cases.[22] In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a rule, Rule 28.8, that all persons arguing orally must be attorneys, although the Supreme Court claims it was simply codifying a "long-standing practice of the court."[23] The last non-attorney to argue orally before the Supreme Court wasSam Sloan in 1978.[23][24] Some lawyers, such asUniversity of Chicago Law School professor Will Baude, have argued that the rule might not be legally valid, and could be challenged by a litigant who might want to appearpro se.[25]
Some courts issue orders against self representation in civil cases. A court enjoined a former attorney from suing the new lover of her former boyfriend and colleague.[26] The Superior Court of Bergen New Jersey also issued an order againstpro se litigation based on a number of lawsuits that were dismissed and a failure to provide income tax returns in case sanctions might issue.[27] TheSuperior Court of New Jersey issued an order prohibiting a litigant from filing new lawsuits.[28] The Third Circuit however ruled that a restriction onpro se litigation went too far and that it could not be enforced if a litigant certified that he has new claims that were never before disposed of on the merits.[29] The 10th Circuit ruled that before imposing filing restrictions, a district court must set forth examples of abusive filings and that if the district court did not do so, the filing restrictions must be vacated.[30] TheDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals wrote that "private individuals have 'a constitutional right of access to the courts',[31] that is, the 'right to sue and defend in the courts'."[32]
In 2011, the Federal Judicial Conference surveyed federal court clerks offices regardingpro se issues. They found that only 17 of 62 responding judges report that discovery is taken in most non prisonerpro se cases and only 13 reported that discovery is taken in most prisonerpro se cases.[14]: 21 In the same survey, 37% of judges found that mostpro ses had problems examining witnesses, while 30% found thatpro ses had no or few problems examining witnesses.[14]: 22 53% found that represented parties sometimes or frequently take advantage ofpro se parties.[14]: 23 Only 5% reported problems ofpro ses behaving inappropriately at hearings.[14]: 24 Respondents to the FJC study did not report any orders against non prisonerpro se litigation.[14]
Pro se litigants may have a lower chance of success. TheLouisiana Court of Appeals tracks the results ofpro se appeals against represented appeals. In 2000, 7% of writs in civil appeals submitted to the courtpro se were granted, compared to 46% of writs submitted by counsel. In criminal cases the ratio is closer – 34% ofpro se writs were granted, compared with 45% of writs submitted by counsel.[33] According to Erica J. Hashimoto, then an assistant professor at the University of Georgia School of Law:
After conducting an empirical study ofpro se felony defendants, I conclude that these defendants are not necessarily either ill-served by the decision to represent themselves or mentally ill. ... In state court,pro se defendants charged with felonies fared as well as, and arguably significantly better than, their represented counterparts ... of the 234pro se defendants for whom an outcome was provided, just under 50 percent of them were convicted on any charge. ... for represented state court defendants, by contrast, a total of 75 percent were convicted of some charge. ... Only 26 percent of thepro se defendants ended up with felony convictions, while 63 percent of their represented counterparts were convicted of felonies ... in federal court ... the acquittal rate forpro se defendants is virtually identical to the acquittal rate for represented defendants.[34]
Somepro se litigants who are federal prisoners are subject to thePrison Litigation Reform Act. TheAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has asserted: "For over thirteen years, the Prison Litigation Reform Act has denied access to the courts to countless prisoners who have become victims of abuse, creating a system of injustice that denies redress for prisoners alleging serious abuses, barriers that don't apply to anyone else. It is time for Congress to pass legislation to restore the courts as a needed check on prisoner abuse."[35][36] 54% of judges responding to a Federal Judicial Conference survey use videoconferences for prisonerpro se hearings.[14]: 29
The Connecticut Supreme Court narrowed criminal defendant's right to self representation, stating that "we are free to adopt for mentally ill or mentally incapacitated defendants who wish to represent themselves at trial a competency standard that differs from the standard for determining whether such a defendant is competent to stand trial". A Senior Assistant State's Attorney explained that the new standard essentially allows judges to consider whether the defendants are competent enough to perform the skills needed to defend themselves, including composing questions forvoir dire and witnesses.[37][38]
There is evidence that self-representation is common in civil cases:
TheUnited States Patent and Trademark Office permitsinventors to file andprosecutepatent applicationspro se and provides resources for them to do so.[42]
According to the 1996 report onpro se byUniversity of Maryland Law School, 57% ofpro se said they could not afford a lawyer, 18% said they did not wish to spend the money to hire a lawyer, 21% said they believed that their case was simple and therefore they did not need an attorney.[43][44] Also, ABA Legal Needs Study shows that 45% ofpro se believe that "Lawyers are more concerned with their own self promotion than their client's best interest."[43]
Defendants who choose to appearpro se may do so because they believe they may gain tactical advantages against the prosecutor, such as obtaining sympathy from the jury, the opportunity to personally address the jury and witnesses.Pro se appearances may also delay the trial proceedings and enhance the possibility of amistrial and a subsequentappeal.[45]
Once convicted, a prisoner no longer has the right to a public defender. Motions for post conviction relief are considered civil motions.Brandon Moon is an example of an unsuccessfulpro se litigant who became successful when his case was taken by a lawyer. Moon's case was taken by theInnocence Project, and he was released after 17 years in jail for a rape that he did not commit.[46]
The Supreme Court has held that where a statute permitsattorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing party, the attorney who prevails in a case brought under a federal statute as apro se litigant is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees.[47] This ruling was based on the court's determination that such statutes contemplate an attorney-client relationship between the party and the attorney prosecuting or defending the case, and that Congress intends to encourage litigants to seek the advice of a competent and detached third party. As the court noted, the various circuits had previously agreed in various rulings "that apro se litigant who isnot a lawyer isnot entitled to attorney's fees".[48]
Narrow exceptions to this principle have also been suggested by other courts in the United States. For example, according to one district court a state-licensed attorney who is acting aspro se may collect attorney's fees when he represents a class (of which he is a member) in aclass-action lawsuit,[49] or according to another court represents alaw firm of which he is a member.[50] In each of those instances, a non-attorney would be barred from conducting the representation altogether. One district court found that this policy does not prevent apro se attorney from recovering fees paid for consultations with outside counsel.[51]Pro se who are not state-licensed attorneys cannot bring up aclass action lawsuit.[20]
Federal courts can impose liability for the prevailing party's attorney fees to the losing party if the judge considers the casefrivolous or for purpose of harassment, even when the case was voluntarily dismissed.[52][53] In the case ofFox v. Vice, U.S. Supreme Court held that reasonable attorneys' fees could be awarded to the defendant under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, but only for costs that the defendant would not have incurred "but for the frivolous claims."[54][55] Unless there is an actual trial or judgment, if there is only pre-trial motion practice such as motions to dismiss, attorney fee shifting can only be awarded underFRCP Rule 11 and it requires that the opposing party file aMotion for Sanctions and that the court issue an order identifying the sanctioned conduct and the basis for the sanction.[56]Pro se still has a right to appeal any order for sanctions in the higher court.[57] In the state courts, however, each party is generally responsible only for its own attorney fees, with certain exceptions.[53]
According toUtah Judicial Council report of 2006, 80 percent of self-represented people coming to thedistrict court clerk's office seek additional help before coming to the courthouse. About 60 percent used the court's website, 19 percent sought help from a friend or relative, 11 percent from the court clerk, and 7 percent went to the library. In the justice courts, 59 percent sought no help.[39]
Manypro se resources come from these sources: local courts, which may offer limited self-help assistance;[58]public interest groups such as theAmerican Bar Association, which sponsors reform and promotes resources for self-help[citation needed]; and commercial services, which sell pre-made forms allowing self-represented parties to have formally correct documents. For example, the Self-Represented Litigation Network (SRLN) is an organization whose web site, srln.org, is dedicated to issues related to self-represented litigation and offers a curated resource library for legal professionals (courts, lawyers, and allies) engaged in pro se litigation. The organization provides no assistance with particular complaints.[59] "Self-help" legal service providers must take care not to cross the line into giving advice, in order to avoid "unauthorized practice of law", which in the U.S. is theunlawful act of a non-lawyer practicing law.[60]
TheAmerican Bar Association (ABA) has also been involved with issues related to self-representation.[61] In 2008, theLouis M. Brown Award for Legal Access was presented to theChicago-Kent College of Law Center for Access to Justice & Technology for making justice more accessible to the public through the use of the Internet in teaching, legal practice and public access to the law. TheirA2J Author Project is a software tool that empowers those from the courts, legal services programs and educational institutions to create guided interviews resulting in document assembly, electronic filing and data collection. Viewers using A2J to go through a guided interview are led down a virtual pathway to the courthouse. As they answer simple questions about their legal issue, the technology then "translates" the answers to create, or assemble, the documents that are needed for filing with the court.[62]
An ABA publication lists "organizations involved inpro se issues" as including (in addition to the ABA itself) theAmerican Judicature Society, theNational Center for State Courts, and the State Justice Institute.[61]
Many federal courts publish procedural guides forpro se litigants.[63][64][65][66] and they've also published theCivil Rightscomplaint forms.[67][68][69][70] Many state courts also publish procedural guides forpro se litigants[71][72][73] and some states have organizations dedicated to delivering services topro se litigants. For instance, the Minnesota Bar Association has a "pro se implementation committee".[74]
United States federal courts created thePublic Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system to obtain case anddocket information from theUnited States district courts,United States courts of appeals, andUnited States bankruptcy courts.[75] The system, managed by theAdministrative Office of the United States Courts, allows lawyers and self-represented clients to obtain documents entered in the case much faster than regular mail.[75] However, the system charges fees, which were the subject of a class action lawsuit ongoing as of 2019.[76]
Freely accessibleweb search engines can assistpro se in finding court decisions that can be cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law or in searching specific state courts.[77]Google Scholar is the biggest database of full text state and federal courts decisions that can be accessed without charge.[78]
In 2017, federal circuit court judgeRichard Posner retired and founded a pro-bono group for helpingpro se litigants,[79] named the Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se's. The Posner Center of Justice was later dissolved in 2019 after the number of assistance requests frompro se litigants overwhelmed the available staff.[80]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)