The Pro Se Litigant's Civil Litigation Handbook

Over a decade ago, The National Center on State Courts conducted a study of domestic relations cases in sixteen (16) large urban trial courts.

• 71% of cases had at least one unrepresented party. In 18% both parties were pro se litigants. (Both parties had counsel in only 28% of cases.)
• The percentage of cases where both parties were pro se ranged from 1% in Dayton, Ohio to 47% in Oakland, California.
• The percentage of cases where both parties were represented ranged from 12% in Washington, D.C, to 47% in Des Moines, Iowa.
• A California study of family matters from 1991 to 1995 found that one party appeared pro se in 2/3 of all domestic relations cases and in 40% of all child custody cases.
• In Maricopa County, Arizona, filings by pro se litigants doubled in the period between 1980 (24% of cases had one (1) pro se litigant) and 1985 (where the rate had reached 47%). By 1990, 88% of the cases involved at least one (1) pro se litigant and no lawyers were involved in more than half of the divorces.

In 1993, an American Bar Association study of family law cases showed that litigants tended to have lower incomes ($50,000 or less in income substantially increases chances of pro se filings), but 20% said they could afford a lawyer but chose to proceed without one. They

• Were generally younger in age
• Had higher educational experience (including the fact that most had some college)
• Did not have children
• Did not own real estate nor were making personal property claims, and
• Had been married less than ten (10) years.

A 1994 study reported 30% of all new general civil actions filed for less than $10,000 of damages in Chicago were filed pro se. Landlord tenant actions were filed pro se 28% of the time.

In 1996, a University of Maryland Law School report on pro se trends found that:

• 57% said they could not afford a lawyer
• 18% said they did not wish to spend the money to hire a lawyer
• 21% said they believed that their case was simple and therefore they did not need an attorney

A 1998 American Bar Association Study of Legal Needs identified various public beliefs that may influence the choice:

• 78% believe "It takes too long for the courts to do the job."
• 77% believe "It costs too much to go to court."

Another American Bar Association study found that the predominate reasons for low-income households not seeking legal help were:

• "it would not help"
• "it costs too much"

Reasons for moderate-income households refusing to employ legal help included the belief that there was not really a problem, that they could handle the issues themselves, and that a lawyer could not help.

The same year, a pro se litigation study of tort and general civil litigation in forty-five (45) urban trial courts by the Boston Bar Association found that 66% of the cases in Probate and Family Court in Boston involved at least one (1) pro se party. It found that an average of 3% of all tort cases had at least one pro se party. California reported in 2001 that over 50% of the filings in custody and visitation cases were by pro se litigants. Urban courts have reported that approximately 80% of the new divorce cases were filed pro se. Other California research indicated that pro se representation is not solely based upon financial considerations, and that a significant portion of family law pro ses in the state were neither poor nor poorly educated.

There is now widespread knowledge and belief that an attorney is not required to go to court. One American Bar Association study found that 88% of the respondents found the statement: "If you go to court, you are required to have a lawyer" to be inaccurate.

There is no disagreement that anti-lawyer sentiment and the growth of do-it-yourself materials have been key factors in the growing trend of pro se litigation. There is also a growing realization that some areas of litigation are simple enough for self-representation. While most individuals believe it is easy enough to get a lawyer if they need one, there is a growing suspicion that lawyers do not make the process easier or more cost-effective. One American Bar Association study found that:

• 50% disagreed that lawyers 'try to help make a divorce simpler and less painful.' (21% were neutral).
• Most respondents did not believe that lawyers can 'make a divorce simpler and less painful.' (Incomes above $75,000 (82%); those with income under $35,000 (63%).)
• 45% believed that 'Lawyers are more concerned with their own self-promotion than their client's best interest.' (22% were neutral)
• 51% believed that "we would be better off with fewer lawyers."

The most common complaint I hear from individuals having trouble in their lawsuits is "The judge is corrupt." My response is always the same:

In over twenty years of litigation experience, as a party, pro se litigant, a paralegal, a litigation manager and in representing other litigants as an advocate under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, I've never encountered a judge who I could prove was actually corrupt. I have seen judges who were ignorant, or biased, or arrogant, or even stupid, but I've never seen a judge who was demonstrably crooked. That doesn't mean that there are none or that I just was not able to prove it. A subscription to an internet blog that reports on judicial misconduct will show you that there are numbers of cases hitting the news every week. But given the total numbers of judges in courts across the country, it just means that misconduct cases based on corruption are so rare that it is unlikely that the judge you are complaining about is actually dishonest. More likely your ignorance of how the system works and what your responsibilities for making it work are the things that are working against you.

My response never makes me a popular guy, but it sometimes effects an "attitude adjustment" that can be helpful.