Introduction to courts- access to justice
Our judicial system is known as an ‘adversarial’ one in most instances. There are two sides representing the interests of the state or plaintiff and the interests of the defendant. As you may imagine, the law is complex as is the process to access justice. This is why there are lawyers, people who specialize and receive extensive, ongoing training in legal practice. Not only is knowledge of the law, statutes, case law, and the language of the law necessary, many lay people are not familiar with the process to begin with. This is one of the reasons why defendants in criminal cases are legally entitled to zealous representation in their case.
Additionally, attorneys can be expensive, billing upwards of several hundred dollars per hour. Legal fees associated with a case can run thousands of dollars, including the court administration costs, paralegal research costs, materials, among other expenses. Some cases are fairly simple matters and may not require a comprehensive understanding of the law or process, so many people choose to represent themselves, such as in small claims court cases. A number of people choose to self-represent in family law cases, though that type of law is arguably more complex. There is a Constitutional right to zealous representation for defendants in criminal cases during their original trial and one appeal, but this right does not apply in civil cases. An inexperienced lawyer or self-represented person may unduly clutter the court docket with meritless filings, incorrect pleadings, or otherwise, in good faith or otherwise. This can cost precious time, cost, and effort resources for the courts and may not provide ‘fair’ access to justice in the eyes of the litigants.
With this in mind, do you believe that people should be allowed to self-represent? Do you think that there should be more resources dedicated to helping self-represented people participate in the judicial process (short of appointing them an attorney)? What kind of resources might those be? What do you think the consequences are of having one or two parties self-represented to the case outcome and the court process? What do you believe the benefits might be?
Discuss your rationale in no fewer than 400 words (juchost shy of two double-spaced pages)
