Self-represented litigants face a daunting task navigating the court system alone and are often left without a sense of control. Although access to an attorney may not prevent all legal turbulence, a person does not typically choose to represent themselves unless it is necessary. Engaging with the court system takes money, time, and energy. Many litigants lack the privileges of access to advice, fluency in technology, and the resources necessary to maintain lengthy legal processes. However, the court system plays an integral role in self-represented litigants’ hope of a more just and equitable future.
Achieving positive legal outcomes is often more challenging for self-represented litigants than litigants represented by counsel. Self-represented litigants face invisible barriers, despite attempts to deconstruct such obstacles. With these barriers in mind, this Note analyzes various practice models to determine the most effective ways to serve self-represented litigants. One solution that is likely to successfully address the veiled nature of self-help services is to incorporate a combination of best practice models that increase access to human-centered legal advice and decrease reliance on advanced technologies.
Access to justice is a pressing issue in the legal community. Even though research proposes diverse solutions for accessibility issues in the justice system, no group is more impacted—yet less studied—than self-represented litigants. This Note centers around self-represented litigants’ experiences at the state district court level by critically analyzing the sources that are available to them, specifically focusing on court administrators, lawyers, and judges. Sections II.A and II.B contextualize the current status of self-represented litigants in Minnesota through background information, including the legal services and legal advice available to these litigants. Section II.C then highlights the barriers that self-represented litigants face, while Section II.D provides an overview of nationally recommended best practice models for courts to implement. Sections III.A and III.B discuss the privilege of obtaining legal advice and compare a selection of currently used best practice models. Finally, Section III.C encourages tangible next steps to increase national availability of self-help resources.
The research in this Note examines legal resources, centers the social sciences, and engages in geographic comparison by analyzing various U.S. jurisdictions to support this Note’s best practices recommendations. This Note highlights the privilege of access to legal advice, the impact of advanced court technology, and the significance of human-centered lawyering. The best practice models recommended in this Note are intended to address the dissatisfaction of self-represented litigants using the justice system. Ultimately, this Note intends to contribute analysis concerning an important and growing, yet often overlooked, aspect of the legal system.