Sentences with phrase «litigants without»

[6] Alternative legal services (ALSs) are, for example: clinics of various types; self - help webpages; phone - in services; paralegal and law student programs; family mediation services; social justice tribunals; and court procedures simplification projects; arbitration and mediation for dispute resolution; public legal education information services; programs for targeted (unbundled) limited retainer legal services (as distinguished from a full retainer to provide the whole legal service); pro bono (free) legal services for short and simple cases; and, the National Self - Represented Litigants Project, the purpose of which is to help self - represented litigants to be better litigants without lawyers.

[vii] Alternative legal services (ALSs) are, for example: clinics offering advice, self - help webpages, phone - in services, paralegal and law student programs, family mediation services, social justice tribunals, and court procedures simplification projects, public legal education information services, programs for targeted (unbundled) limited retainer legal services (as distinguished from a full retainer to provide the whole legal service), pro bono (free) legal services for short and simple cases, and the National Self - Represented Litigants Project, the purpose of which is to help self - represented litigants to be better litigants without lawyers.

Hearings involving one or more litigants without counsel usually take longer to conclude because of litigants» difficulties with the rules of court, the rules of evidence and the legislation governing their application.

The Wisconsin high court's four - justice majority seems intent on making it easier for big money to influence the judiciary, at the expense of litigants without resources to contribute to political campaigns.

In the former, I suggested a judge - guided model that was intended to be cheaper, faster and much more friendly to litigants without counsel.

Many lawyers and other legal services providers are rising to the challenge, finding innovative ways to help self - represented litigants without providing full legal representation.

That's why so many litigants without the means to hire a lawyer represent themselves.

In my 28 August 2015 post, «The Rights and Responsibilities of Self - represented Litigants,» I reproduced a document intended to sketch out, like the name suggests, the reasonable expectations that litigants without counsel should have as they make their way through the legal system, and their concurrent obligation to attempt to acquire a reasonable understanding of legal processes.

Here's a chart comparing the percentage of litigants without counsel in each age group with Statistics Canada census data from 2006 and 2011 on the percentage of the general population in each age group.

Your comment about pro se litigants is interesting; one of the themes that emerges from Julie Macfarlane's work on self - represented litigants and Justice Gray's look at the struggles litigants without counsel have with the law of evidence is the worry that in some cases justice is simply not being done.

It would be the first UK court ever to be designed, from start to finish, for use by litigants without lawyers and would be intended for simple, low - value disputes.

The list of adaptations and alterations that might help litigants without counsel better negotiate the family justice system continues, of course, and could include the codification and simplification of the rules of evidence, the rewriting of legislation to eliminate adversarial language and presumptions, and a reorientation of the dispute resolution default setting from litigation to processes that take place outside the courthouse.

In Nova Scotia, the 35 to 44 year old age group is disproportionately represented among litigants without counsel:

In the national research, a range of 51 to 55 % of judges and lawyers in Alberta thought that litigants without counsel achieved worse results on child support and spousal support, parenting arrangements and the division of property; 32 to 44 % of judges and lawyers in the rest of Canada felt the same way.

Although this research doesn't necessarily label it as such, I've noticed that there's a bit of a slippery slope effect to litigating without counsel, in which the the decision to self - represent, whether a choice was involved or not, seems to trigger a cascade of adverse effects that ultimately result in litigants without counsel achieving worse results in every major area of family law than would have been achieved with counsel.

(Hence the extraordinary participation rates of litigants without counsel in our provincial courts.)

Although the lion's share of litigants without counsel have incomes that are lower than average, the studies to date show that a significant number have incomes that are toward the middle and high ranges:

In Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, litigants without counsel belong disproportionately to the 40 plus age group.

At the end of the day, litigants without counsel achieve worse results than litigants with counsel.

All of this information strikes me as potentially useful when designing services and reforming processes for litigants without counsel.

The national survey also showed that 70 % of respondents from Alberta and 55 % of respondents from the rest of Canada believe that litigants without counsel are more likely to take unreasonable positions based on principle.

In her report on the needs of litigants without counsel, Professor Macfarlane wrote that:

I understand the constitutional, financial and practical reasons for the courts» existence, but most litigants without counsel are justifiably flummoxed by the parallel existence of courts with different rules, different forms, different jurisdiction and different fee structures.

The Nova Scotia Department of Justice surveyed 58 litigants without counsel for its 2004 report Self - represented Litigants in Nova Scotia.

Clearly lawyers are unaffordable for the majority of litigants without counsel.

The millions of dollars we spend on public legal education produces correspondingly valuable resources, without a doubt, but those resources can not equip litigants to comfortably and competently manage the system — especially those unable to devote themselves to the full - time study of legal processes, those whose first language is not English or French, or those with cognitive or functional impairments — and, as a result, whenever we talk about litigants without counsel, the conversation inevitably veers toward the delays, costs and other inconveniences such litigants impose on court and counsel.

It seems to me that whenever we talk about litigants without counsel, the conversation inevitably veers toward the delays, costs and other inconveniences such litigants impose on court and counsel, and the sort of public legal education that might be provided to smooth the stormy seas.

In her 2013 report Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self - represented Litigants, Julie Macfarlane obtained demographic data from 230 litigants without counsel in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

Some of the other overall findings include the statistical fact that plaintiffs in English courts win their cases 75 % of the time, which is more than double the US figure and that self - represented litigants i.e. litigants without a lawyer, generally beat expectations and were often very successful in court.

In the last five years, 81 per cent of respondents said there were either many more or more cases with litigants without representation, 19 per cent said it was roughly even, and no one reported fewer litigants without representation.

«There is no single or simple solution to these problems, but it is clear that the challenges posed by family litigants without lawyers needs to be better understood and addressed,» says the study.

57 per cent reported that judges treat litigants without representation «very well» and 31 per cent think judges give «good treatment» to them.

It is easy enough to point to the observable consequences of this superabundance of litigants without counsel — chief among them the increased number of ill - conceived chambers applications, the ever - expanding length of trials and the congestion presently plaguing court registries — and shudder in horror.

Although there may be a hybrid approach which lies somewhere in the middle of these two options, it is clear that the present system is inordinately complex, requires enormous funding to maintain, and is largely inaccessible to litigants without counsel at a time when such litigants are flooding the courts.

«There is growing concern about litigants without lawyers, especially for family cases, which are often complex and have profound effects on litigants and their children, and where the judgment of litigants is particularly prone to be being influenced by emotions,» says Bala.

[7] The second reason, the report explains, is that such groups make up a disproportionate number of litigants without representation.

A few years ago I was doing some work for a professional association on guidelines for dealing with litigants without counsel and I was struck by the extent to which some legal professionals regard litigants without counsel as interlopers who gum up the finely tuned, well - oiled machine that is their justice system.

A new Practice Direction from Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench reflects increasing acceptance of the fact that litigants without lawyers are no longer an anomaly in civil litigation.

While the obligation on the judge isn't new, this statement makes clear the importance of ensuring that litigants without lawyers are able to meaningfully participate in the legal action, whether as plaintiffs or respondents and further that they have the opportunity to present their position and evidence to the best of their individual ability.

You can follow the discussion on Legal Research For the Pro Se Litigant without having to leave a comment.

As we deliberate on the barriers to justice and explore avenues of improvement in the age of the litigant without counsel, it seems to me that we need some degree of resolution to the debate on the extent to which complexity in family law matters is necessary or desirable, and the extent to which complexity is compatible with an accessible system of family justice.

A litigant without a lawyer no matter how well prepared or articulate is clearly at a disadvantage, not because they lack the ability to represent themselves, but because they challenge the system and this is not welcome.

This last principle is worthy of special consideration in the age of the litigant without counsel.

I see what you're saying, but I wonder to what extent the court's reasoning about vague legislation will hold up in this the age of the litigant without counsel?

A Judge should not make derogatory remarks about any litigant without knowing the whole truth, so Justice can prevail.

I suggest it is even more stressful for the litigant without a lawyer.

In recent commentaries I have expressed the view that how we do family justice needs to be radically rethought in this the age of the litigant without counsel, as well as some concern that the current efforts toward change are not undertaking as fundamental a reformation as perhaps they might.

Not exact matches

In a human rights court, litigants from religious communities have a right to think the judges will treat them fairly and, to the extent possible, decide cases without bias.

Nearly 70 % of defendants — and over 75 % of all litigants — go to court without a lawyer.

This earlier report concludes that self - represented litigants tend to take unreasonable positions in family law disputes which ultimately reduce the likelihood that these disputes will resolve without a trial.