new MA pro se guides for judges and parties
The Judicial Guidelines for Civil Hearings Involving Self-Represented Litigants were approved by the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court in April, 2006. “While the legal and ethical constraints upon the courts and the judiciary, such as those contained in the Code of Judicial Conduct, apply with equal force to cases involving self-represented litigants, judges have broad discretion within these boundaries. These guidelines have been developed to assist judges in recognizing the areas in which they have discretion and to assist them in the exercise of that discretion.”
1.5 Materials and services for self-represented litigants. Judges should encourage the provision of information and services to better enable self-represented litigants to use the courts. Judges also should encourage self-represented litigants to use these resources.
Commentary: While, at first glance, this role seems more appropriately assigned to court staff, it is important that judges support this function. Many courts have informational handouts that can be made available in the courtroom, as well as in the Clerk’s Office, Registry of Probate, and Probation Office. Judges should encourage the use of such materials. These handouts may include the phone numbers of lawyer referral services and may contain language that explains the advisability of retaining counsel. They also may include frequently asked questions and court specific information, such as information on alternative dispute resolution services, lawyer-for-a-day programs, housing specialists, and crisis centers.It is important that judges support the provision of services,as well as information, to self-represented litigants. Judges should encourage and work with bar associations, law schools, legal services providers, and other organizations on programs that will provide in-person assistance to self-represented litigants in their courts. These may include, for example, lawyer-for-a-day programs and programs in which attorneys and those working under their supervision meet with litigants in the court and provide advice, assistance, and appropriate referrals. Judges also should endeavor to manage cases involving self-represented litigants in coordination with other services that may be used by or provided to litigants (e.g., mental health and substance abuse services).
Representing Yourself in a Civil Case: Things to Consider When Going to Court (MA) This comprehensive 81-page guide has ten topics for self-represented litigants to consider and utilize when going to court: 1) Access and fariness; 2) Deciding whether to represent yourself; 3) If you decide to hire a lawyer..; 4) Who’s who in the courthouse; 5) Getting ready for your day in court; 6) Starting a civil case; 7) Proceeding with a civil case; 8) Going to trial in a civil case; 9) After the court’s decision; and 10) Settling your case.
shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » Aus. pro se defendant told to resubmit her defense
November 9, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
[…] How do those guidelines jibe with Judge O’Sullivan’s actions and with the practice in your jurisdiction? […]
shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » are housing courts too tenant-friendly?
December 1, 2006 @ 11:37 am
[…] Ted Frank would have us despair, I guess, for the poor tenants of Boston (95% of whom show up without a lawyer in housing court). Not only has the Harvard Law Legal Aid Bureau started to sponsor pro se eviction clinics ”to help low income families fill out answer-and-discovery forms, gather landlord information, and generally build better counterclaims to help them with their case,” but the Massachusetts judiciary has recently released (see our prior post) both a set of guidelines for judges in dealing with pro se parties, and the 81-page e-booklet Representing Yourself in a Civil Case: Things to Consider When Going to Court (MA). Even more ominous, from the Overlawyered-Franksian perspective, is the news this week from the Boston Globe that the Boston Bar Association has “expanded its ‘lawyer-for-the-day‘ program at Boston Housing Court, in which attorneys give free legal advice to tenants and landlords, to include having lawyers try cases in court.” (”Few chances for lawyers to develop trial skills,” Nov. 29, 2006; via Legal Blog Watch, Nov. 30, 2006) […]
shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » “pro se pothole” awards?
December 15, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
[…] If we had the resources, we would turn shlep’s burning spotlight on Pro Se Potholes — on court systems in counties or states that put obstacles in the way of litigants appearing in court without counsel, or which have failed to promulgate or put into effect guidelines or adequate training for judges and court staff, regarding the treatment of pro se parties. Being even-handed, a financially flush shlep might even create a list of jurisdictions that are just too darn nice to pro se litigants. Other course, we’d call it our Self-Help Special Ed Awards, in honor of former Massachusetts Bar President Ed Ryan, who believes courts are giving far too much help to the self-represented. We’re gonna backburner this idea for now, however. […]
shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » NYT focuses on a pro se outlier, sheds little light
February 19, 2007 @ 11:36 am
[…] If you’d like to learn more about the vital issue broached by the NYT today, see our prior post discussing the The Judicial Guidelines for Civil Hearings Involving Self-Represented Litigants in Massachusetts; ; our discussion of Prof. Jona Goldschmidt’s paper “Judicial Assistance to Self-Represented Parties: Lessons from the Canadian Experience; and our posting describing the Queensland (Australia) Equal Treatment Handbook […]