While there is no substitute for a lawyer, the help of a well - trained non-lawyer
standing by a litigant's side is far preferable to no help at all.
Not exact matches
That shift was made possible
by the 1965 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which, for the first time, granted environmental
litigants standing to sue in federal 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».
Of course, no judge can ever be a consistent Mute, and the examples provided
by Sunstein revolve around courts declining
standing to
litigants as an instance of Muteness.
N O T I C E It is notified for the information of all concerned Advocates / Advocates - on - Record /
litigant public that the Court Programme issued
by Dr. Faqir Hussain, Former Registrar on Orders of Former Chief Justice on 03.11.2007 conveying sitting of the Hon» ble Judges
stands cancelled and withdrawn.
The importance of this point is not, however, that it can be fashioned into a self -
standing constitutional principle, but that it underscores that a
litigant, whether plaintiff or defendant, comes to court not to gain a benefit, but to vindicate a right already conferred on him or her
by law.
Our courts are already struggling with the costs and burdens associated with an increasing number of self - represented
litigants who have been driven to
stand alone in court
by the crushing burden of high legal fees and expensive court proceedings.