Given the state of our economy and the rising costs of legal representation, it should come as no surprise that pro se litigation is increasing–rapidly. It should also come as no surprise that the legal system struggles to cope with pro se litigants. In his forward, entitled “Root Causes of the Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Crisis,” Fordham Law Professor Michael Martin writes:
For the pro se litigant, fundamental rights have allegedly been impinged, and the litigant is forced to navigate systems with which even attorneys—professionals with expertise and long academic training—struggle. For the judiciary, pro se cases overwhelm courts’ dockets and require extra effort and attention, given that the pro se litigants lack legal training and the judicial system typically relies on lawyers to self-police the civil dockets. For lawyers, pro se litigants represent the failure of a profession given a monopoly on legal services and its inability to absorb the impoverished who have claims against another. To the extent pro se litigation scars the judiciary and the legal profession, society as a whole suffers.
The plight of the pro se litigant was the topic of my recent article, also published in the Fordham Law Review. There, I argued that individuals “filing pro se must try to untie the tangled rope of procedure, rules, and precedent on their own. The result is often a morass of indecipherable legal pleadings, forfeiture of basic rights, and clogging of court dockets.” I suggested a few ways that Congress, the courts, and the bar could ameliorate some of the difficulties facing pro se litigants.
Pro se litigants are not going away, especially considering that an increasing number of Americans simply can’t afford the cost of legal representation. It is incumbent that everyone involved with the legal system help remedy this fundamental problem of access to justice.
The latest edition of the Fordham Law Review is available here.