Over the past fifteen years, a consensus has grown to acknowledge that the number of self-representing litigants are increasing among Commonwealth countries, notably Canada (Richardson, Sourdin, & Wallace, 2012, p. 13). As an influential choice on the outcome of a case, does the phenomenon of self-representing litigants prove to be more troublesome than it is rewarding? Indeed, the negative outcomes of this practice can be a detriment to the litigants’ right to receive a just and fair hearing in a court of law and an unnecessary hardship to the court process itself. Overall, unless the individual is able to prove their capabilities of mounting a proper defense, the phenomenon of self-representing litigants has disproportionately negative effects
…show more content…
For instance, the opposing counsel, “hired to safeguard and advance the interests of one person or group,” may face SRLs who expect “advice and assistance to both sides” (Blishen, 2006, p. 118). In fact, during the judicial process, “[l]awyers for the parties opposing a SRL are more likely to have to assist the SRL in the preparation and lodgment of court documents” and have to “address irrelevant issues and evidence as part of the SRLs case” (Richardson et al., 2012, p. 32). Moreover, “to the extent that court personnel or judges are at all sympathetic to efforts by self- represented litigants to receive assistance in conducting their cases, the other party to the dispute may feel that the fundamental tenet of neutrality has been breached” (Berenson, 2001, p. 113-114). In fact, this dispute holds legitimacy as judges have expressed concerns “that enforcing rules of procedure less rigidly against self- represented parties might be perceived as being unfair to the represented party” (Berenson, 2001, p. 114). In addition, although self-represented litigants are not subject to lawyer fees during the judicial process, they may “increase costs for all parties due to a need for more pre-trial proceedings, poor issue identification, greater time responding to unclear and irrelevant evidence and more time spent in hearings” (Richardson et al., 2012, p. 14). Consequently, the added time required to advance the judicial process with a SRL “may expend or incur more legal costs as a result of delays or time taken at trial by the SRL” (Richardson et al., 2012, p. 32). In short, the opposing party may experience increased time and, thus, costs while facing judicial proceedings involving a
For instance, the opposing counsel, “hired to safeguard and advance the interests of one person or group,” may face SRLs who expect “advice and assistance to both sides” (Blishen, 2006, p. 118). In fact, during the judicial process, “[l]awyers for the parties opposing a SRL are more likely to have to assist the SRL in the preparation and lodgment of court documents” and have to “address irrelevant issues and evidence as part of the SRLs case” (Richardson et al., 2012, p. 32). Moreover, “to the extent that court personnel or judges are at all sympathetic to efforts by self- represented litigants to receive assistance in conducting their cases, the other party to the dispute may feel that the fundamental tenet of neutrality has been breached” (Berenson, 2001, p. 113-114). In fact, this dispute holds legitimacy as judges have expressed concerns “that enforcing rules of procedure less rigidly against self- represented parties might be perceived as being unfair to the represented party” (Berenson, 2001, p. 114). In addition, although self-represented litigants are not subject to lawyer fees during the judicial process, they may “increase costs for all parties due to a need for more pre-trial proceedings, poor issue identification, greater time responding to unclear and irrelevant evidence and more time spent in hearings” (Richardson et al., 2012, p. 14). Consequently, the added time required to advance the judicial process with a SRL “may expend or incur more legal costs as a result of delays or time taken at trial by the SRL” (Richardson et al., 2012, p. 32). In short, the opposing party may experience increased time and, thus, costs while facing judicial proceedings involving a