Letter To The Editor

Opinion: Court Rules Should Not Favor Self-Represented Litigants

The Connecticut Law Tribune

   |1 Comments

To The Editor:

In its October 7, 2013 piece entitled "Judicial Assistance to Self-Represented Litigants," the Connecticut Law Tribune's Editorial Board calls on the Connecticut judiciary to clarify the extent of a trial judge's discretion to relax rules of procedure and evidence as applied to self-represented litigants (SRLs).

In the board's view, Connecticut judges need some help to understand and apply Rule 2.2 of Connecticut's Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 2.2 is entitled "Impartiality and Fairness" and articulates the important, self-evident expectation that a "judge shall uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially." Comment 4 goes one step further, assuring judges that "[i]t is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure self-represented litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard."

Under the guise of clarifying Comment 4, the Editorial Board is seeking to expand it. The board wants judges to act differently in SRL cases from cases in which attorneys represent the parties. Whenever SRLs appear before a trial court, the board thinks Connecticut judges should be:

• Giving SRLs "information about procedures and evidentiary requirements."

• Asking "neutral questions . . . to elicit and clarify information provided by witnesses."

• Questioning "any witness for clarification when the facts are confused, undeveloped, or misleading."

• "Relaxing technical rules concerning the form of questions and foundation requirements for evidence."

• "Refraining from employing technical language and legal jargon."

• Explaining "the process and ground rules for an evidentiary hearing," including "the elements and burden of proof; and the kinds of evidence that can be presented and kinds of evidence that cannot be considered."

What's being said

  • Kenneth Laska

    Attorney Tower is absolutely right. Neither party to a dispute should be treated differently. Why should a person who choses to retain an attorney be penalized? That is what a client asked me in a case brought by a pro se. The pro se failed to use the proper summons to commence the suit. As a result I filed a motion to dismiss, but as I told my client, the courts tend to lean over backwards to assist the pro se. Hence the question “Why should I be penalized for retaining an attorney?”
    We should treat the pro se the same way we treat those who build their homes, wire their houses, do the plumbing or plant their gardens. You want help hire a professional. Otherwise do it yourself and them come back to me so that I can charge you more to unravel your mess.

    What I find fascinating are those persons who will gladly spend hundreds of dollars on a Vet for their pet, but balk at spend any money for an attorney to represent them in a real estate transaction, draft a will, or write a lease. The last three can have lasting impacts upon their lives, but Fido seems to be more important.

    Maybe the editorial board might want to get down in the trenches with the rest of us to see what really goes on and what the world is really like.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202629282448

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.