This is a short law review article published by the Journal of the Legal Profession. The article begins by turning the age-old adage that “one who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client” on its head. It adroitly points out the fact that the vast majority of those who represent themselves in civil litigation do so only begrudgingly and out of necessity. Its primary focus is on the barriers pro se litigants encounter in the pre-trial procedural realm. This article begins by outlining the duties judges and court administrators owe to pro se civil litigants. The article then goes on to illustrate an example of how one jurisdiction (Minnesota) attacked these issues.

By looking at the traditional roles of clerks, judges, and mediators within the United States legal system, the article analyzes a serious barrier to access. The author takes an in-depth look at the underlying principles that have shaped the current system and the current attitudes, including historical and ethical principles. Various real examples are provided to demonstrate the role the court system as a whole plays in preventing greater access to justice. Further, the author argues that unless the roles and attitudes of these key legal players does not change, the problem of limited access to our legal system will only continue to worsen.

This article provides an analysis of the ethical concerns that arise when, through the unbundling of legal services, court pleadings and other various documents are drafted anonymously by a legal professional for use by a pro se litigant. Because of the ethical obligations imposed upon all attorneys, these ethical concerns stand as a formidable barrier to greater access to justice. Specifically, the article addresses issues of attorney competence, duty of diligent representation, scope of representation, and withdrawal from representation and how these obligations to a client are placed in jeopardy when limited legal assistance is provided. Moreover, an attorney’s ethical obligations to the court, such as that of candor and to not make misrepresentations, are examined as well. Throughout the discussion, the author emphasizes the need to avoid stifling the development of limited legal assistance models through strict interpretations of ethical norms.

The article featured on this website provides a short and concise view of access barriers that stem from the client’s side, rather than from the side of the legal profession. It lays out various barriers that everyday people encounter in facing legal problems; barriers that quite often lead to a lack of professional legal representation. For instance, financial, cultural and geographic barriers are all noted. The article further provides suggestions on how, through the use of technology, these barriers can be overcome.

In this article Charles F. Luce, Jr. examines the ethical and legal concerns surrounding the issue of “Ghost Writing” pleadings. Mr. Luce recognizes and analyzes three arguments against the increasing practice of pros se litigants submitting attorney-drafted pleadings as their own. First, he addresses whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 is implicated. Second, in light of his analyses of Rule 11, he compares the issues to Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4. Finally, Mr. Luce addresses the court made principle of preferential treatment for pro se litigants and how this should affect a court’s policy for accepting “ghost written” pleadings.

Mr. Luce concludes that no bright line rule is applicable and ethical principles need to be consulted instead. He suggests that ghost written pleadings should indicate on their face that they were prepared with the assistance of counsel and leave to the court’s discretion whether the identity of the attorney should be made known.

Catherine J. Lanctot provides a relevant and succinct article that addresses the concerns of how, or if, legal advice should be regulated in cyberspace. She begins by pointing out problematic areas for the legal community (i.e., technophobia, binding regulatory schemes, and inherent economic self-protective behavior). Ms. Lanctot then divides her analysis into two parts. The first part deals with the legal advice given to non-lawyers by lawyers using the internet. The second part concerns the advice given by laypersons to non-lawyers.

Ms. Lanctot discusses the issues involving attorney use of the internet with respect to the attorney-client relationship and the possibility of malpractice suits, as well as the idea of ethics violations arising from the unbundling of legal services. She finds the difficulty, or at least the hesitancy of state bar associations, in defining the practice of law with any degree of certainty to be a potential problem when regulatory efforts come in full force. According to Ms. Lanctot, laypersons giving advice raises issues of whether existing unauthorized practice of law precedent should apply to online activity, whether such an application would be constitutional, and whether the bars should even regulate the practice.

Ms. Lanctot concludes with a brief description of what role attorneys should play, now and in the future, regardless of the impact of the internet.

The primary purpose of this website is to expose legal misconduct in Rhode Island. However, it has many links, which serve to educate a potential pro se litigant of barriers he may encounter. One article of particular use is entitled “Bias Against Pro Per Litigants: What It Is. How to Stop It.” This article does a good job of explaining in plain language what obstacles pro se litigants face. For example:

• Procedural requirements that are often perversely difficult
• Strange and unfamiliar legal jargon that often serves as a means to exclude from the courts anyone who doesn't speak the language or doesn't pay a lawyer to translate
• Attitudes of judges and their courtroom personnel
• Court clerks who withhold information from non-lawyers that they routinely give to lawyers. If a lawyer's office calls to ask about a particular scheduling procedure, for example, the clerk provides all sorts of answers without thinking twice. But if a self-represented person asks for the same (or even less) information, it suddenly becomes legal advice. Many clerks' offices feel compelled to post signs saying, "We don't provide legal advice!" Most often, that means that they are unwilling to help unrepresented people get into court or respond to a lawsuit
• County law libraries that are operated almost exclusively for the convenience of lawyers. Non-lawyers are often made to feel distinctly unwelcome and again are visited with the "we don't provide legal advice" admonition when making a request for reference information
• People who show up without lawyers are singled out and labeled as "pro per" or "pro se" litigants. As is frequently true with other group labels imposed on a group from outside it, these terms mask a deeper institutional bias

This website is also instructive to potential pro se litigants in that it provides links to practical tips on handling a case on their own. A few such links include, “Legal System Myths,” “Dealing with a Bad Judge,” and “Invalid Legal Arguments.” It also goes on to suggest some possible solutions to these problems.

The 17th Judicial District of Colorado has produced an informative website that illustrates some of the ways a court system can help overcome the various roadblocks of providing access to justice for the pro se litigant. The site links the user to a variety of pages that contain topic-specific information that can aid pro se litigants in understanding their rights and how to exercise them.

The site focuses on providing “information” only, but also provides forms and instructions for filling them out. Interestingly enough, an example of the disclaimers that are referred to in the articles by Charles Luce and Catherine Lanctot can be found on this site, but it takes some looking. Several questions are raised. For instance, does the fact that a court sponsors a service remove all notions of impropriety? Should this particular court now give special deference to the users of this service?