About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

84 Judicature 326 (2000-2001)
Meeting the Pro se Challenge: An Update

handle is hein.journals/judica84 and id is 328 raw text is: locus Meeting the pro se challenge: an update by Kathleen M. Sampson S elf-representation in court pro- ceedings-a phenomenon known as pro se litigation-continues to grow. But, as AIS pointed out in its 1998 study, Meeting the Challenge of Pro Se Litigation: A Report and Guidebook for Judges and Court Managers, there is of- ten a lack of consensus among legal professionals about the best way to ac- commodate the self-represented. For example, judges surveyed for Meeting the Challenge were divided: some were annoyed by the presence of pro se litigants, while others be- lieved judges should help the self- represented receive a fair hearing by relaxing procedural rules. And al- though many respondents expressed a desire for formal policies to guide judicial behavior in pro se cases, more than 90 percent of judges sur- veyed said their courts had no such protocols. In the three years since the publi- cation of Meeting the Challenge, how- ever, much has been done to over- come the obstacles facing both pro se litigants and the courts in which they represent themselves-and the pro se course is becoming clearer. Action plans In 1999, with funding from the State Justice Institute and Open Society In- stitute, AIS convened the National Conference on Pro Se Litigation in Scottsdale, Arizona, offering court, bar, pro se assistance program, and academic representatives from 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the North- ern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico 326 Judicature Volume 84, Number 6 the chance to develop action plans to assist the self-represented. The state teams identified poten- tial supporters and obstacles to implementing their plans, set goals, and developed detailed task lists and timelines for implementation. Com- mon action plan themes included: 9 Establishing task forces to edu- cate members and build support for pro se assistance programming-in most cases to be sponsored by the chief justice or state supreme court. * Including judges, court person- nel, and state and local bar represen- tatives on implementation commit- tees. Other frequently mentioned representatives were librarians (pub- lic and law); community representa- tives; academics; social service pro- viders; legislators; legal services attorneys; and representatives of bar disciplinary, ethics, and pro bono committees. e Targeting programming efforts at family law cases, in which the ma- jority of pro se litigants appear. * Unbundling legal services (also known as discrete task representa- tion). a Assessing needs and collecting statistics. e Simplifying and standardizing forms and procedures. * Convening statewide conferences on pro se litigation. Progress report AJS recently requested implementa- tion updates from the state team leaders, 23 of whom responded. Many of the states have met initial goals and are working toward achiev- ing longer-range goals. A sampling of progress reports includes: * Florida conducted a statewide pro se litigation conference in May 2000, New Mexico in January 2001, and Massachusetts in March 2001. California held regional conferences in March and April 2001, and New York will hold its statewide confer- ence in September. * California, Florida, and Maine are working to develop court rules on unbundled legal services, and seven states are conducting needs assess- ments or gathering statistics about pro se litigation. Results of these studies will be used to convince policy makers of the need for assis- tance programs and to justify fund- ing requests. * Eleven states are reaching out to build broad support for pro se assis- tance programs. Representatives in these states are meeting with law li- brarians; speaking to state confer- ences of bar members, judges, and court clerks; joining existing court reform groups; and educating stake- holder groups about the impact of pro se litigation. * California, New York, Ohio, Utah, and Wisconsin are planning or have conducted training for judges and/or court personnel on dealing with pro se litigation. * Utah also developed guidelines for court clerks and opened an online court assistance program for prepar- ing documents ready for filing in land- lord-tenant cases and uncontested di- vorces (http://courtlink.utcourts. gov). e Delaware opened a Family Court Resource Center and a website for in- formation about the court, divorce/ annulment packets, etc. (http:// courts.state.de.us/family). & Oregon has standardized the forms for family-law cases, which now are available on the state court website (www.ojd.state.or.us; use link to family law forms). Use of the standardized forms is optional. - In March, New Jersey launched the first of a new series of packets for use by the self-represented. The packets provide uniform forms for May-June 2001

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most