Sentences with phrase «by litigants when»

Not exact matches

If the Ed Trust proposal imprudently invites lawsuits from aggrieved parents on a few specific topics, it appears quite restrained when compared to the superhighway to the courtroom concocted by the No Child Left Behind Commission, which offers an unlimited array of statutory language to an unlimited universe of potential litigants.

There's less need to destroy (or avoid making) records when the government limits how much exposure a wrongdoer faces from individual litigants, as in Europe, so less pressure to, say, «simplify» laws by removing requirements to document at all.

Bar associations requiring extensive disclosure have decided the accountability of «fly - by - night» ghostwriters outweighs the desire for anonymity due to the preferences of pro se litigants or of ghostwriters who do not want to have their identity attached to a document when there is no guarantee how the litigant will actually use it in court.

More importantly, Reeve made an important step in skills training: he introduced formal moot courts as a part of the Litchfield curriculum, though on an optional basis.53 Initially, the students themselves conducted the moots, though by 1803, when James Gould was teaching at Litchfield, he presided over the arguments.54 The rules Gould imposed for the moots required not only oral argument, but also written argument, because the litigants had to produce writs and pleadings as well.55 Although a far cry from modern legal writing programs, these moot courts at least endeavored to provide some practical training in the production of persuasive writing.56

Additionally, there is no time - bound definition of matrimonial property — when a divorce litigant makes disclosure of their assets, they require to list everything they own, including assets owned prior to the marriage, assets acquired after separation, and assets acquired any time by gift or inheritance.

It hurts other litigants: for example, when only one party to a matter is represented by counsel, the result is typically a higher legal bill for that party.

Is the current law of civil contempt applicable to self - represented litigants or is there a different standard that applies when a litigant does not have the benefit of representation by a lawyer?

These exceptions are made in the case of contemporaneous medical records that, while subject to being attacked as unreliable by opposing litigants, can speak to pertinent facts for which no other evidence exists; for example, the notes of a chiropractor made during an appointment that occurred prior to a car accident that resulted in a personal injury claim, which shed light on the Plaintiff's condition before the accident when no other available evidence could.

I have to confess that when I first read the headline — «Self - represented litigants «treated with contempt» by many judges, study finds» — my heart jumped into my throat.

Thus Lord Loreburn LC in Brown v Dean [1910] AC 373 [at 374]: «When a litigant has obtained a judgment in a court of justice... he is by law entitled not to be deprived of that judgment without very solid grounds.»

; citing: Andre Gallant, «The Tax Court's Informal Procedure and Self - Represented Litigants: Problems and Solutions» (2005), 53 Canadian Tax Journal 2; and, Anne - Marie Langan, «Threatening the Balance of the Scales of Justice: Unrepresented Litigants in the Family Courts of Ontario» (2005), 30 Queen's L.J. 825, «the author cites data compiled by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, which show that in 2003, 43.2 percent of applicants in the Family Court Division of the Ontario Court of Justice were not represented by counsel when they first filed with the court.

As noted by the Ontario Court of Appeal in M.E.H. v. Williams (2012 ONCA 35), purely personal interests can not justify non-publication or sealing orders: ``... the personal concerns of a litigant, including concerns about the very real emotional distress and embarrassment that can be occasioned to litigants when justice is done in public, will not, standing alone, satisfy the necessity branch of the test».

I have heard that court costs about $ 2000 / hr when all the costs are added up; when trials take an extra day of trial time because they are bogged down by struggling lay litigants, no doubt i would have cost less to the taxpayer to provide a legal aid lawyer in the first place.

(2) Courts are clogged with unrepresented litigants; judges» having to help such unrepresented litigants contradicts a judge's appearance of impartiality when one party is represented by counsel and the other is not.

Pending the outcome of the consultation, this interim guidance should be considered by courts, litigants, their legal representatives and the media if and when any application is made to the court to permit the use of live, text - based communications.

There is always a significant power imbalance when a self - representing litigant enters a court proceeding opposite a party represented by counsel.

When different persons combine their lawsuits because the facts and the defendant are so similar and where a single litigant's case is heard by the court as representative of all (together, called a «class»).

In a decision welcomed by defendant lawyers, the Supreme Court recently confirmed that no allowance will be made for Litigants in Person (LIPs) when it comes to the strict rules regarding service of a Claim Form.

It is difficult when you are under constant fire by a litigant and are personally attacked when you are trying to do your job.

The June 21, 2011 South Carolina Supreme Court opinion in Ex Parte Brown 393 S.C. 214, 711 S.E. 2d 899 (2011), finally establishes «that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is implicated when an attorney is appointed by the court to represent an indigent litigant.

Moore was retained by the Alberta government when litigants from Saskatchewan started using the same arguments as the Comeau defence team to challenge subsidies that the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission provides to craft breweries in the province, arguing that they were tantamount to trade barriers and were forbidden under the new and expanded (or old and revived, depending on your view) version of section 121 espoused in Judge LeBlanc's decision.

Even though Alphamix concerned a domestic arbitral award, the attitude of the Judge in scrutinizing the arguments against the enforcement of an award when a litigant has gone through all the proper court procedures, even public interest ones, is most welcome and sends a strong signal to public bodies which choose to have their commercial disputes resolved by way of arbitration, that they should take arbitration proceedings and arbitral awards made against them seriously.

But, since the Internet is transnational in nature, it remains difficult to see how a single state can offer this type of service to cross-border disputes, especially when neither litigant has any connecting factors (to use the terminology set forth by the Supreme Court to establish competence for online disputes) with said state.

Both solutions will occur because the power of the news media and of the internet, interacting, will quickly make widely known these types of information, the cumulative effect of which will force governments and the courts to act: (1) the situations of the thousands of people whose lives have been ruined because they could not obtain the help of a lawyer; (2) the statistics as to the increasing percentages of litigants who are unrepresented and clogging the courts, causing judges to provide more public warnings; (3) the large fees that some lawyers charge; (4) increasing numbers of people being denied Legal Aid and court - appointed lawyers; (5) the many years that law societies have been unsuccessful in coping with this problem which continues to grow worse; (6) people prosecuted for «the unauthorized practice of law» because they tried to help others desperately in need of a lawyer whom they couldn't afford to hire; (7) that there is no truly effective advertising creating competition among law firms that could cause them to lower their fees; (8) that law societies are too comfortably protected by their monopoly over the provision of legal services, which is why they might block the expansion of the paralegal profession, and haven't effectively innovated with electronic technology and new infrastructure so as to be able to solve this problem; (9) that when members of the public access the law society website they don't see any reference to the problem that can assure them that something effective is being done and, (10) in order for the rule of law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the whole of Canada's constitution be able to operate effectively and command sufficient respect, the majority of the population must be able to obtain a lawyer at reasonable cost.

The Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides for fees when a litigant prevails in an action brought by the United States and Section 1988, which provides for fees for prevailing parties in civil rights actions are two of the best known federal fee - shifting statutes.

Considering that many litigants go to trial when they would have been better off by accepting their counterpart's last offer, just reaching an agreement typically creates value for the parties... [Good Pretrial Lawyering, p. 41]

Litigants who I have talked to concerning their experience in the litigation process have on more than one occasion said to me when referring to the mountains of paper generated by their lawsuit and the costs of the action:

The nature of this assessment becomes extremely important when a judge determines, as a judge did two weeks ago in British Columbia, that a civil contempt has been committed by a family litigant which should be punished with imprisonment.

Brandon Moon is an example of an unsuccessful pro se litigant who became successful when his case was taken by a lawyer.

provide greater clarity as to when a party has failed to act reasonably, such as by requiring parties to abide by the Commonwealth model litigant guidelines.

First, Committee members became more aware of the relevant issues and difficulties encountered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander litigants when accessing and using the Court and were able to share this knowledge with the rest of the judiciary.

When considered in light of the relatively lower uptake of dispute resolution services by way of Family Relationship Centres (as reported earlier by Indigenous litigants - see Table 7) the results suggest that the accessibility of dispute resolution services may be an issue for Indigenous families.

Given the number of pro se litigants in the District of Columbia, this will require resources that were not anticipated by the court or the legislature when the new Act was passed.