Sweet, Civil Gideon and Confidence in A Just Society, 17 Yale L. 59, 70 (2007) (“The presence of lawyers in a civil case makes a substantial difference to the outcome of the proceedings.”) Robert W. See, e.g., Debra Gardner, Justice Delayed Is, Once Again, Justice Denied: The Overdue Right to Counsel in Civil Cases, 37 U. Without representation by counsel, it is probable, to some degree, that adequate justice cannot be served in this case. In many cases, pro se justice is an oxymoron. If the plaintiff were to continue pro se, the court would probably be forced to intervene and, in effect, advocate on his behalf, possibly prejudicing the defendant’s case. Nor would the legal situation justify the court’s asking a member of the bar to volunteer litigation obligations would probably require a costly outlay for discovery. The case, on its face, without substantial discovery, would not warrant the appearance of private counsel working for financial gain. The recusal decision has powerful language about the plight of pro se litigants and the need for a right to counsel (some of which refers to writing by NCCRC participants such as Debra Gardner and Becky Sandefur):Īt the present time, there are no satisfactory means, through statute or otherwise, to provide this pro se plaintiff with counsel. Cosi, a litigant brought a pro se case in the Eastern District of New York for employment discrimination, and the federal judge wound up recusing himself after the litigant’s pro se status led the judge to ask the litigant “leading questions” that enabled the litigant to avoid a time bar issue (as the result of the questioning and prior to recusal, the judge denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion, but notably, the defendants did not request such a recusal).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |