Talk:Litigant in person

How is a litigant in person different from a pro se? Josh Cherry 11:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is an identical concept. The only difference appears to be one of jurisdiction and terminology. In the UK, the term 'litigant in person' is used. The Latin tag 'pro se' appears to be the favoured term in the USA. It may be appropriate to combine the two pages and to tease out the slight jurisdictional differences in defining the powers and limitations of the litigant in person. Personally I prefer the term 'litigant in person' since it is more easy to understand for the English speaker. JPF 15:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I, too, think the artciles should eb combined. I will put merge tags.—msh210℠ 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Based on my review of the two articles, I agree to the merge. I don't know much about British terminology though. Mneumisi 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree wholeheartedly. Here's the difference: Pro Se means "you are representing yourself" (as if you are a corporation and you are standing in to represent the corporation at court.) In the eyes of the court, you are now held to a lawyer's standard (lawyers have to be perfect in their briefs, filings, dates, etc. They cannot make any mistakes or the paper/filing is invalid.) However, if you are sui juris (unrepresented) they have to hold you to a less stringent standard (you are a common man, not a lawyer.) These two items are polar opposites as regards the common law and should be kept as separate definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwhiteside327 (talk • contribs)

• The comments by Dwhiteside327 (above) and MikeHovell (on Talk:Pro se) suggests that there is a reason to keep these articles separate. I am therefore removing the merge template. --Lox (t,c) 21:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire biased and incorrect section needs to be removed:

"and Magistrates and Judges who have traditionally acted towards litigants in person as having diminished standing before the court. It is often the case of lawyers attempting to practice Bar etiquette rather than proper procedure when dealing with those who are self represented in order to deflect their attempts at obtaining fair and due process. The general attitude of the legal community; judges, solicitors and their allied and auxiliary staff, is one of patronism and condescension. Court Registries attempt to create an atmosphere like that depicted in the Zimbardo Experiment and blatantly show preference to solicitors and their clerks, who in some cases have long standing friendships with registry staff. This goes equally for judges who are familiar with lawyers in court to the point of mnemonics – much to the litigant’s disheartening amazement. More disturbing still is the inevitable inability of the court to remain neutral or disinterestedly objective in most matters where a litigant attempts to defend themselves in person.

Lawyers generally speak badly of litigants who do not give them business, they speak of their poor chances of success. In truth, as it stands, this is the correct view. Litigants in person have no chance while they are prejudiced by legal systems for not belonging, for taking up the courts time and by lawyers who are opportunistic is using the fact that the court frowns on the self-represented. They can be bundled together with vexatious litigants, paupers and imbeciles or presumed innocent and competent and therefore not required to give reasons why they exercise the right to self representation, unless for some reason they would make an issue of it.

“Unrepresented” (or “non-represented”) is the derogatory term used by lawyers to describe what is lacking in a person who chooses not to use a lawyer; to give the activity a negative connotation, to suggest something is missing, an absence of something necessary or important. The term “self represented” does not indicate anything is presumed to be lacking or improper in the activity. The term unrepresented is bandied and misapplied in all fashion of legal and statutory document, which demonstrates the insidious nature of the prejudice against self represented litigants.

The problem with those who are unwilling or incapable of self representation is not another matter entirely, it is the duty of the court to render assistance and protect those in need, but not by abrogating their rights and not by maintaining the institutional bias that currently prevails."

This is clearly the opinion of someone aggrieved by the system. Lawyers frown upon Litigants in person because they tend to have no legal training or experience of court procedure and put an enormous burden on the resources of the court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlusby (talk • contribs) 11:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike Hovell?

I've removed the following material:

Mike Hovell says: The only real reason to appear Pro Per is to argue against the Jurisdiction of the Court. As seen in Bouvier's Law Dictionary: "PROPRIA PERSONA. In his own person. It is a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be pleaded in propria persona, because, if pleaded by attorney, they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction.

As it stands its plain wrong. Certainly in my jurisdiction (and many others) having a legal representative argue against the jurisdiction of the court is fine. If there is a jurisdiction as described, then that could be noted, but I'd like some details first (like where?). And who is Mike Hovell? Google throws up loads of hits but I don't know which one is referred to. The quote is also daft since, if "pro per" mans "litigant in person" (which I understand it does from the heading - we have been abandoning Latin here so I don't know) and if one cannot afford a lawyer that is a very good reason to act as a litigant in person. The quote must be wrong or out of context. Francis Davey (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Litigant in person. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405065918/http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/ to http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040123173042/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980212/text/80212-28.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980212/text/80212-28.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)