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

29 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1221 (2016)
Not All Pro Se Litigants Are Created Equally: Examining the Need for New Pro Se Litigant Classifications through the Lens of the Sovereign Citizen Movement

handle is hein.journals/geojlege29 and id is 1238 raw text is: Not All Pro Se Litigants Are Created Equally: Examining the Need for New Pro Se Litigant Classifications Through the Lens of the Sovereign Citizen Movement JESSICA K. PHILLIPS* INTRODUCTION Much to the chagrin of many trial court judges, the number of pro se litigant filings in the U.S. judicial system has steadily increased over the past two decades.1 While some judges view accommodating the needs of individual pro se litigants as a necessary aspect of ensuring equal access to justice,2 others view pro se litigants collectively as a nuisance in need of reform or removal. The reasons posited for this increase in pro se litigants range from advancements in modern technology to anti-lawyer sentiment and rising attorney's fees to weakening familial ties resulting in domestic disputes being taken to the courthouse.4 Though one particular catalyst for this turn to self-representation is inherently difficult to define, the strongly positive trend of increased pro se litigant filings is unlikely to diminish in the near future. The rise in unrepresented participants in the judicial system has also generated controversy around how best to ensure pro se litigants have legitimate opportuni- ties to be heard and understood when facing represented opponents.5 Alhough pro se litigants are technically required to adhere to the same rules of procedure and law that represented parties follow, judges afford significant leniency to pro se litigants during each stage of litigation.6 This leniency extends to the format of court documents, quality of pleadings, length and decorum of in-court arguments, * J.D., Georgetown University Law Center (expected 2017); M.B.A., University of Central Florida (2014); B.A., New York University (2012). © 2016, Jessica K. Phillips. 1. See infra Part II.A. 2. See Howard I. Lipsey, The Role of the Judge in Pro Se Litigation, 10 No. 6 DIVORCE LIG. 115, 115 (1998). 3. Jona Goldschmidt, How Are Courts Handling Pro Se Litigants?, 82 JUDICATURE 13, 20 (1998) (analyzing a national survey by the American Judicature Society and the Justice Management Institute, including one response from a judge which stated: I would do away with pro se representation altogether.). 4. See Jona Goldschmidt, The Pro Se Litigant's Struggle for Access to Justice: Meeting the Challenge of Bench and Bar Resistance, 40 FAM. CT. REV. 36, 36 (2002). 5. See Jessica Case, Note, Pro Se Litigants at the Summary Judgment Stage: Is Ignorance of the Law an Excuse?, 90 Ky. L.J. 701, 701 02 (2002). 6. Rory K. Schneider, Comment, Illiberal Construction of Pro Se Pleadings, 159 U. PA. L. REV. 585, 586 87 (2011) 1221

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