SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS, THE COURTS, AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION: MYTHS AND REALITIES

Many general jurisdiction trial judges believe that family law litigants choose not to use lawyers and that this choice leads inevitably to their inability to obtain just results in their cases and constitutes an expensive, frustrating, and largely insoluble problem for the judicial branch. There is a parallel view within the family law bar which can be summarized: The provision of forms and information on the Internet has deceived self-represented litigants into believing that they can and should handle their own family law cases. They not only sacrifice their legal rights, but also squander judges' time, which in turn jeopardizes the rights and raises the costs of those clients who retain lawyers. The self-help phenomenon also threatens the financial livelihood of lawyers. Available data and experience contradict both beliefs. This article points out that (1) most self-represented litigants do not choose to represent themselves, instead they have no alternative; (2) judges who follow recognized best practices for dealing with self-represented litigants encounter no unusual ethical issues; (3) self-represented litigants, when given appropriate accommodation, are able to obtain fair outcomes reflecting the facts and law applicable to their cases; (4) cases involving self-represented litigants consume far less court and judicial resources than cases in which both sides are represented; and (5) self-represented litigants constitute a potentially lucrative market for the delivery of limited-scope representation by the private bar. Key Points for the Family Court Community: most self-represented litigants do not choose to represent themselves, instead they have no alternative; judges who follow recognized best practices for dealing with self-represented litigants encounter no unusual ethical issues; self-represented litigants, when given appropriate accommodation, are able to obtain fair outcomes reflecting the facts and law applicable to their case; cases involving self-represented litigants consume far less court and judicial resources than cases in which both sides are represented; self-represented litigants constitute a potentially lucrative market for the delivery of limited-scope representation by the private bar.