As we continue to build followers to this blog, we are delighted to receive more and more comments and contributions. We very much encourage and welcome this – that is the point of promoting dialogue. However, in the interests of that dialogue, we want to ensure that this is done in a style that is always respectful towards all parties involved in this forum.

Frank, open and truthful debate is what we encourage. This is a topic on which many people feel very strongly and our aim is to convene a place for this discussion and exchange. However the Blog Editors reserve the right to edit or withhold posting comments which:

i) Could be seen as unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, otherwise disruptive to civil debate on the blog, or encourage conduct that would be considered a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability, or violate any law.
ii) Publish falsehoods or misrepresentations
iii) Are personally harsh and unkind, and would violate the spirit of respectful dialogue that we are committed to promoting

Legitimate Public Concern or Lawyer-Bashing?

My recently released research report on self-represented litigants in Canadian family and civil courts has created a lot of buzz – some of it in the form of offence-taking by some members of the legal profession. Is criticizing the way in which the public receives services from lawyers just lawyer-bashing – or is this a matter of legitimate public concern? Historically, the Canadian justice system has been remarkably deaf to the view of its users. We have been slow to [...]

Read more...

Keeping the Train Moving Forward on the Tracks

It has been one year since I began working with Dr. Macfarlane on the Self Represented Litigants Research Project as the Project Coordinator and I was honoured when she asked me to write the blog this week with regards to issues I have seen arise during this work….here’s a glimpse….. Train 1 runs from A to B at 105 kms per hour on track 1-A leaving at 12 noon EST.  The other, Train 2, from B to A on track [...]

Read more...

The “Scourge” of Self-Representation?

Earlier this month, Canadian Lawyer magazine published an article (http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/4463/the-scourge-of-unrepresented-litigants.html) under this attention-grabbing headline. Attention-grabbing and to many – including myself, whose work was cited immediately under the headline, giving the impression that it reflected my research findings – offensive. A “scourge” is a plague, an epidemic of something extremely unpleasant. So many other words could have been used:  the “phenomenon” of self-representation, the “rise” of self-representation, or even “the challenge”. Generalizing self-represented litigants as a “scourge” promotes a blatantly self-serving myth [...]

Read more...

The Truth Is Raw

The Ottawa Citizen article about the National Self-Represented Litigants Project (Don Butler, January 01 2013) has drawn many comments to my inbox as well as on our Facebook page and to the newspaper itself.  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. Yes, that is just what I am constantly told by self reps. Many in the justice system [...]

Read more...

Avoiding Conflation: OPCAs and Self-Represented Litigants

The press and the web have been full of references this week to Alberta judge Justice Rooke’s judgment in Meads v Meads. Described as an effort to “take back the legal system” from those who would clog the courts with what Rooke describes as “pseudo legal commercial arguments”, this story has been pitched in many quarters as a general attack on self represented litigants, described as “vexatious litigants”. However a reading of the almost 200 page judgment – not something [...]

Read more...

How User Friendly are Legal Forms? A Small Experiment.

I recently set one of our Project research assistants the unenviable task of  completing the forms to file for divorce in the three provinces in which we are interviewing self represented litigants (Alberta, BC and Ontario). “Sure” said Kyla Fair breezily. As a law student about to enter her final year of law school she was justified in feeling upbeat about this assignment. “Keep a log” I asked Kyla. “Please write down how much time you spend, each step [...]

Read more...

Let’s Put that Pesky Medical Analogy to Rest

I have been struck by how frequently – in discussions with lawyers and others, in on-line comments on articles, on our project Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Representing-yourself-in-a-legal-action/285291868160529) – we see a statement like this: “I wouldn’t take out my own appendix/ do my own brain surgery/ install my own pacemaker etc – so why would anyone think they could be their own lawyer without proper training?” Fair question, at first glance – until we peel back the layers of complexity that are [...]

Read more...

Trauma? What Trauma?

Since the end of last year, I have spoken with more than 160 SRL’s and we have dozens more waiting for an interview to be scheduled (and keep coming! we shall be interviewing through October). There has been an astonishing amount of consistency among these experiences. Whether in family or civil court, the experiences described in our 45-60 minute long interviews bear many similarities. Listening to the stories I am told, I keep feeling that I have heard this over [...]

Read more...

The Two Solitudes

I am increasingly struck – as I spend up to five hours a day interviewing self reps about their experiences – that there are two solitudes emerging. One is the world of the self reps where there seem to be many, inexplicable, obstacles to pursuing timely and effective justice, mixed in with a dash of contempt or even hostility from some quarters (the impatient judge, the rude lawyer, the exasperated clerk). The other is the world of law that [...]

Read more...
Font Resize
Background Color