A few weeks ago, I attended a Town Hall meeting aimed at addressing issues that arise in cases involving self-represented litigants.  While in law school, I don’t believe the thought of having a case against a party not represented by counsel ever crossed my mind.  However, the reality is that the number of cases being filed and tried by pro se parties is increasing at an astounding rate.  As was discussed during the Town Hall meeting, this reality poses a complex set of hurdles that many lawyers have trouble stomaching.

Looking at Rule 4.3 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, titled “Dealing with Unrepresented Person,” a lawyer, in dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel “shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested.  When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer’s role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.”

While this Rule provides some instruction in how to define your role as advocate for the opposing party, it does not provide concrete advice as to how to interact with an unrepresented party during the course of litigation.  There are many concerns that attorneys, regardless of experience, have expressed when dealing with pro se opposition.

For instance, how are discovery techniques modified when dealing with a self-represented litigant?  Some at the meeting indicated that less slack was given regarding discovery time limits and deadlines.  Others stated that they use Requests for Admission of Facts more frequently.

Beyond discovery, handling and interacting with a pro se opponent in the courtroom also presents some unique complications.  Particularly in the family law arena, judges and masters are caught in a very delicate situation, balancing their obligation to call “balls and strikes,” while ensuring that a fair and equitable result is achieved.  Members of the bar at the meeting were nearly unanimous, indicating that the Adjudicator’s role was to advise the pro se litigant that he or she would be bound to the same rules of evidence and procedure.  Some members of the bench opined that, in certain circumstances, some relaxing of standards may be necessary in order to facilitate a just result.

While some techniques and practices varied, one common theme was constant – ALWAYS COMMUNICATE IN WRITING.  Writing a simple introductory letter, advising the opposing party that you are not disinterested and further indicating that you are representing the interests of an adversary is a safe approach at the beginning of the case.  As the case progresses, and as it has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum, putting all communication on paper or in an email is always the best bet.

Powered by Bookmarkify™