Letter To The Editor

Opinion: Court Rules Should Not Favor Self-Represented Litigants

The Connecticut Law Tribune


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).

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.