Pro se legal representation in the United States

"Pro per" redirects here. For the abbreviation indicating a document is signed on someone else's behalf, see Procuration.

Pro se legal representation (/ˌproʊ ˈsiː/ or /ˌproʊ ˈseɪ/) comes from Latin, literally meaning "on behalf of themselves", which basically means advocating on one's own behalf before a court, rather than being represented by a lawyer. This may occur in any court proceeding, whether one is the defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, and when one is a defendant in criminal cases. Pro se is a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself" or "on one's own behalf". This status is sometimes known as propria persona (abbreviated to "pro per"). In England and Wales the comparable status is that of "litigant in person".

According to the National Center for State Courts 2006 report, in the United States, many state court systems and the federal courts are experiencing an increasing proportion of pro se litigants.[1] Estimates of the pro se rate of family law overall averaged 67% in California, 73% in Florida's large counties, and 70% in some Wisconsin counties.[1] In San Diego, for example, the number of divorce filings involving at least one pro se litigant rose from 46% in 1992 to 77% in 2000, in Florida from 66% in 1999 to 73% in 2001.[1] California reports in 2001 that over 50% of family matters filings in custody and visitation are by pro se litigants.[2] In the U.S. Federal Court system for the year 2013 approximately 27% of civil actions filed, 92% of prisoner petitions and 11% of non-prisoner petitions were filed by pro se litigants.[3] Defendants in political trials tend to participate in the proceedings more than defendants in non-political cases, as they may have greater ability to depart from courtroom norms to speak to political and moral issues.[4]

History

The right of a party to a legal action to represent his or her own cause has long been recognized in the United States, and even predates the ratification of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court noted that "[i]n the federal courts, the right of self-representation has been protected by statute since the beginnings of our Nation. Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92, enacted by the First Congress and signed by President Washington one day before the Sixth Amendment was proposed, provided that 'in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of counsel.'"[5]

In Faretta v. California,[6] the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings. That said, the right to represent oneself is not absolute. It is the Court's right and duty to determine if a particular individual is capable of representing himself, and can inquire into the individual's lucidity and mental status to make that determination.[7]

Rules

Most U.S. states have a constitutional provision that either expressly or by interpretation allows an individual to represent one's own cause in the courts of that state. In many instances, state constitutional provisions regarding the right to petition the government for redress of grievances have been so interpreted.

The U.S. Judiciary Act, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges,[8] the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure address the rights of the self-represented litigant in several places.

Section 1654 of title 28 of the United States Code provides: "In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein."

Laws and organizations charged with regulating judicial conduct may also affect pro se litigants. For example, The State of California Judicial Council has addressed through published materials the need of the Judiciary to act in the interests of fairness to self-represented litigants.[9] The California rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits, even if resolution requires excusing inadvertence by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal. The Judicial Council justifies this position based on the idea that "Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referee... A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits."[10] It suggests "the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial" and says "There is only one reported case in the U.S. finding a judge's specific accommodations have gone too far." The committee notes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 56 on summary judgements notes that "Many courts take extra care with pro se litigants, advising them of the need to respond and the risk of losing by summary judgment if an adequate response is not filed. And the court may seek to reassure itself by some examination of the record before granting summary judgment against a pro se litigant."[11]

Starting November 1, 2011, the Federal Court for the Central District of California permits pro se litigants to receive documents electronically by an Electronic Filing Account (ECF). As of May 16, 2013, they are still prohibited from filing their documents electronically unlike litigants represented by counsel. The November 1, 2011 policy of the Central District of California is a cost-saving measure for the court. All they have to do is send in the form, have a PACER account, and provide a valid email address.[12][13]

According to a June 2012 report from U.S. Courts, 18 of 94 federal district courts authorize use of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) for pro ses and 11 authorize use of ADR by prisoner pro ses.[14] Thirty seven of the ninety four federal districts allow pro se litigants to use ECF.[15]

Limits

The ability of a party to proceed without an attorney in prosecuting or defending a civil action is largely a matter of state law, and may vary depending on the court and the positions of the parties.

A longstanding and widely practiced rule prohibits corporations from being represented by non-attorneys,[16] consistent with the existence of a corporation as a "person" separate and distinct from its shareholders, officers and employees.[17] The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that a "nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. Requiring a lawyer to represent a corporation in filing the notice does not violate the guarantee that any suitor may prosecute or defend a suit personally. A corporation is not a natural person and does not fall within the term “any suitor.”[18][19][20]

Similarly, a pro se litigant may not act as a class representative in a class action lawsuit[21] and therefore a pro se litigant may not bring a class action.[21] Furthermore, a non-attorney parent may not appear on behalf of his or her child, except to appeal the denial of social security benefits to such child.[21]

Another situation in which appearance through counsel is often required is in a case involving the executor or personal administrator of a probate estate. Unless the executor or administrator is himself an attorney, he is not allowed to represent himself in matters other than the probate.[22]

Some federal court of appeals allow unrepresented litigants to argue orally (even so nonargument disposition is still possible), and in all courts the percentage of cases in which argument occurs is higher for counseled cases.[23] In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a rule that all persons arguing orally must be attorneys, although the Supreme Court claims it was simply codifying a "long-standing practice of the court."[24] The last non-attorney to argue orally before the Supreme Court was in 1978.[24][25]

The Connecticut Supreme Court narrowed criminal defendant's right to self representation, stating that "we are free to adopt for mentally ill or mentally incapacitated defendants who wish to represent themselves at trial a competency standard that differs from the standard for determining whether such a defendant is competent to stand trial". A Senior Assistant State’s Attorney explained that the new standard essentially allows judges to consider whether the defendants are competent enough to perform the skills needed to defend themselves, including composing questions for voir dire and witnesses.[26][27]

Some courts issue orders against self representation in civil cases. A court enjoined a former attorney from suing the new lover of her former attorney.[28] The Superior Court of Bergen New Jersey also issued an order against pro se litigation based on a number of lawsuits that were dismissed and a failure to provide income tax returns in case sanctions might issue.[29] The Superior Court of New Jersey issued an order prohibiting a litigant from filing in federal court.[30] The Third Circuit however ruled that a restriction on pro se litigation went too far and that it could not be enforced if a litigant certified that he has new claims that were never before disposed of on the merits.[31] The 10th Circuit ruled that before imposing filing restrictions, a district court must set forth examples of abusive filings and that if the district court did not do so, the filing restrictions must be vacated.[32] The District of Columbia Court of Appeals wrote that "private individuals have 'a constitutional right of access to the courts',[33] that is, the 'right to sue and defend in the courts'."[34]

In 2011, the Federal Judicial Conference surveyed federal court clerks offices regarding pro se issues. They found that only 17 of 62 responding judges report that discovery is taken in most non prisoner pro se cases and only 13 reported that discovery is taken in most prisoner pro se cases.[35] In the same survey, 37% of judges found that most pro ses had problems examining witnesses, while 30% found that pro ses had no or few problems examining witnesses.[36] 53% found that represented parties sometimes or frequently take advantage of pro se parties.[37] Only 5% reported problems of pro ses behaving inappropriately at hearings.[38] Respondents to the FJC study did not report any orders against non prisoner pro se litigation.[39]

Some pro se litigants who are federal prisoners are subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has asserted: "“For over thirteen years, the Prison Litigation Reform Act has denied access to the courts to countless prisoners who have become victims of abuse, creating a system of injustice that denies redress for prisoners alleging serious abuses, barriers that don't apply to anyone else. It is time for Congress to pass legislation to restore the courts as a needed check on prisoner abuse.”[40][41] 54% of judges responding to a Federal Judicial Conference survey use videoconferences for prisoner pro se hearings.[42]

In criminal court

Pro se representation presents unique but not insurmountable challenges for claimants and the legal system. In Louisiana, for instance, the Louisiana Court of Appeals tracks the results of pro se appeals against represented appeals. In 2000, 7% of writs in civil appeals submitted to the court pro se were granted, compared to 46% of writs submitted by counsel. In criminal cases the ratio is closer - 34% of pro se writs were granted, compared with 45% of writs submitted by counsel.[43] According to Erica J. Hashimoto, an assistant professor at the Georgia School of Law,:

“After conducting an empirical study of pro se felony defendants, I conclude that these defendants are not necessarily either ill-served by the decision to represent themselves or mentally ill….In state court, pro se defendants charged with felonies fared as well as, and arguably significantly better than, their represented counterparts…of the 234 pro se defendants for whom an outcome was provided, just under 50 percent of them were convicted on any charge….for represented state court defendants, by contrast, a total of 75 percent were convicted of some charge…. Only 26 percent of the pro se defendants ended up with felony convictions, while 63 percent of their represented counterparts were convicted of felonies…in federal court…the acquittal rate for pro se defendants is virtually identical to the acquittal rate for represented defendants.”[44]

Since an independent evaluation of the cases is difficult, this study can by design not distinguish whether defendants without representation face a greater challenge or whether defendants are more likely to choose representation when in doubt of the merit of their case.

In civil court

There is evidence that self-representation is common in Civil Cases:

Reasons

According to the 1996 report on pro se by University of Maryland Law School, 57% of pro se said they could not afford a lawyer, 18% said they did not wish to spend the money to hire a lawyer, 21% said they believed that their case was simple and therefore they did not need an attorney.[51][52] Also, ABA Legal Needs Study shows that 45% of pro se believe that “Lawyers are more concerned with their own self promotion than their client’s best interest.”[51]

Defendants who choose to appear pro se may do so because they believe they may gain tactical advantages against the prosecutor, such as obtaining sympathy from the jury, the opportunity to personally address the jury and witnesses. Pro se appearances may also delay the trial proceedings and enhance the possibility of a mistrial and a subsequent appeal.[53]

Once a prisoner has been convicted, they don't have a right to a public defender. Motions for post conviction relief are considered civil motions. Brandon Moon is an example of an unsuccessful pro se litigant who became successful when his case was taken by a lawyer. His case was actually taken by the Innocence Project, which doesn't take very many cases. He was released after 17 years in jail for a rape that he didn't commit. Before he was able to interest the Innocence Project in his case, he applied many times and made the same arguments that the lawyers later won with. The New York Times reported this in an article on December 22, 2000 as an example of courts not paying attention to pleadings by pro se litigants. (Barbara Novovitch, free after 17 years for a rape that he did not commit).

Self-representation by attorneys

An attorney who represents himself or herself in a matter is still considered a pro se litigant. Self-representation by attorneys has frequently been the subject of criticism, disapproval, or satire, with the most famous pronouncement on the issue being British poet Samuel Johnson's aphorism that "the attorney who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."

Attorney fees

The Supreme Court has held that where a statute permits attorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing party, the attorney who prevails in a case brought under a federal statute as a pro se litigant is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees.[54] This ruling was based on the Court's determination that such statutes contemplate an attorney-client relationship between the party and the attorney prosecuting or defending the case, and that Congress intends to encourage litigants to seek the advice of a competent and detached third party. As the Court noted, the various Circuit Courts had previously agreed in various rulings "that a pro se litigant who is not a lawyer is not entitled to attorney's fees".[55]

Narrow exceptions to this principle have also been suggested by other courts in the United States. For example, according to one district court a state-licensed attorney who is acting as pro se may collect attorney's fees when he represents a class (of which he is a member) in a class action lawsuit,[56] or according to another court represents a law firm of which he is a member.[57] In each of those instances, a non-attorney would be barred from conducting the representation altogether. One district court found that this policy does not prevent a pro se attorney from recovering fees paid for consultations with outside counsel.[58] Pro se who are not state-licensed attorneys cannot bring up a class action lawsuit.[21]

Federal courts can impose liability for the prevailing party's attorney fees to the losing party if the judge considers the case frivolous or for purpose of harassment, even when the case was voluntarily dismissed.[59][60] In the case of Fox v. Vice, U.S. Supreme Court held that reasonable attorneys' fees could be awarded to the defendant under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, but only for costs that the defendant would not have incurred "but for the frivolous claims."[61][62] Unless there is an actual trial or judgment, if there is only pre-trial motion practice such as motions to dismiss, attorney fee shifting can only be awarded under FRCP Rule 11 and it requires a that the opposing party file a Motion for Sanctions and that the court issue an order identifying the sanctioned conduct and the basis for the sanction.[63] Pro se still has a right to appeal any order for sanctions in the higher court.[64] In the state courts, however, each party is generally responsible only for its own attorney fees, with certain exceptions.[60]

Resources

According to Utah Judicial Council report of 2006, 80 percent of self-represented people coming to the district court clerk’s office seek additional help before coming to the courthouse. About 60 percent used the court’s Web site, 19 percent sought help from a friend or relative, 11 percent from the court clerk, and 7 percent went to the library. In the justice courts, 59 percent sought no help.[45]

Many pro se resources come from these sources: local courts, which may offer limited self-help assistance;[65] public interest groups, such as the American Bar Association, which sponsors reform and promotes resources for self-help, and commercial services, which sell pre-made forms allowing self-represented parties to have formally correct documents. For example, the Self-Represented Litigation Network (SRLN) is an organization whose web site, srln.org, is dedicated to issues related to self-represented litigation and offers a curated resource library for legal professionals (courts, lawyers, and allies) engaged in pro se litigation. The organization provides no assistance with particular complaints.[66] "Self-help" legal service providers must take care not to cross the line into giving advice, in order to avoid "unauthorized practice of law", which in the U.S. is the unlawful act of a non-lawyer practicing law.[67]

The American Bar Association (ABA) has also been involved with issues related to self-representation.[68] In 2008, the Louis M. Brown Award for Legal Access was presented to the Chicago-Kent College of Law Center for Access to Justice & Technology for making justice more accessible to the public through the use of the Internet in teaching, legal practice and public access to the law. Their A2J Author Project is a software tool that empowers those from the courts, legal services programs and educational institutions to create guided interviews resulting in document assembly, electronic filing and data collection. Viewers using A2J to go through a guided interview are led down a virtual pathway to the courthouse. As they answer simple questions about their legal issue, the technology then “translates” the answers to create, or assemble, the documents that are needed for filing with the court.[69]

An ABA publication lists "organizations involved in pro se issues" as including (in addition to the ABA itself) the American Judicature Society, the National Center for State Courts, and the State Justice Institute.[68]

States have organizations dedicated to delivering services to pro se litigants. For instance, the Minnesota Bar Association has a "pro se implementation committee".[70]

United States federal courts created the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system to obtain case and docket information from the United States district courts, United States courts of appeals, and United States bankruptcy courts.[71] The system, managed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, allows lawyers and self-represented clients to obtain documents entered in the case much faster than regular mail.[71] Several federal courts published general guidelines for pro se litigants and Civil Rights complaint forms.[72][73][74][75]

There are also freely accessible web search engines to assist pro se in finding court decisions that can be cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law.[76] Google Scholar is the biggest database of full text state and federal courts decisions that can be accessed without charge.[77] These web search engines often allow pro se to select specific state courts to search.[76]

Many federal courts publish procedural guides for pro se litigants.[78][79][80][81] Many state courts also publish procedural guides for pro se litigants.[82][83][84]

There are also guides for judges as to how to be fair and responsible when one or more party is pro se.[85]

Notable pro se litigants

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Madelynn Herman (September 25, 2006). "Self-Representation: Pro Se Statistics". National Center for State Courts. Archived from the original on 2012-05-04.
  2. ↑ "Civil Pro Se And Non-Pro Se Filings, by District, During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2013" (PDF).
  3. ↑ Barkan, Steven E. (1976–1977), Political Trials and the Pro Se Defendant in the Adversary System 24, Soc. Probs., p. 324
  4. ↑ 'Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 813 (1975)
  5. ↑ Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
  6. ↑ Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008)
  7. ↑ Document Viewer
  8. ↑ John Greacen, Greacen Associates LLC "Ethical Issues for Judges in Handling Cases with Self-Represented Litigants" courtinfo.ca.gov
  9. ↑ Ibid (quoting Gamet v. Blanchard).
  10. ↑ "Rule 56. Summary Judgment". LII / Legal Information Institute.
  11. ↑ http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Notice-from-the-Clerk-ProSe-Electronic-Service.pdf
  12. ↑ http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/cacd/forms.nsf/0b2b50f03ce1d589882567c80058610a/1918784c9cff601b88257936005c5939/$FILE/G-80.pdf
  13. ↑ "Alternative Dispute Resolution Now an Established Practice in Federal Courts". United States Courts.
  14. ↑ http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/proseusdc.pdf/$file/proseusdc.pdf p. 1
  15. ↑ Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993), at .
  16. ↑ Jonathan R. Macey, Macey on Corporation Laws (2000 supplement), §4.02[D] (b), "Appearance pro se.
  17. ↑ Jadair Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 209 Wis. 2d 187, 561 N.W.2d 718 (Wis. 1997)
  18. ↑ Rights of suitors. § 21(2) [As amended April 1977]
  19. ↑ Wisconsin Annotated Constitution.
  20. 1 2 3 4 "Representing Yourself in Federal Court (Pro Se)".
  21. ↑ 2 Weil & Brown s. 130 (California law).
  22. ↑ Case Management Procedures in the Federal Court of Appeals, p. 10, at fjc.gov.
  23. 1 2 Gresko, Jessica (July 1, 2013). "Supreme Court: You Must Be A Lawyer To Argue Case". Huffington Post. AP. Retrieved 16 January 2016.
  24. ↑ Patrice, Joe (July 1, 2013). "R.I.P. Pro Se Litigants Before the Supreme Court". Above the Law. Retrieved 16 January 2016.
  25. ↑ "shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress".
  26. ↑ Westlaw 2009 WL 1941780.
  27. ↑ http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/223302
  28. ↑ http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/decisions/Hahn_120312.pdf
  29. ↑ http://www.romingerlegal.com/new_jersey/appellate/a3771-98.opn.html
  30. ↑ http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/884/884.F2d.745.88-1720.html
  31. ↑ https://law.resource.org/pub/reporter/F3/145/145.F3d.1346.97-6362.97-6350.html
  32. ↑ Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977)
  33. ↑ Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907)
  34. ↑ http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/proseusdc.pdf/$file/proseusdc.pdf p. 21
  35. ↑ http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/proseusdc.pdf/$file/proseusdc.pdf p. 22
  36. ↑ http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/proseusdc.pdf/$file/proseusdc.pdf p 23
  37. ↑ http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/proseusdc.pdf/$file/proseusdc.pdf p. 24
  38. ↑ http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/proseusdc.pdf/$file/proseusdc.pdf
  39. ↑ "Prison Litigation Reform Act Denies Access To Courts For Over 2 Million People". American Civil Liberties Union.
  40. ↑ Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
  41. ↑ http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/proseusdc.pdf/$file/proseusdc.pdf p. 29
  42. ↑ Statistical Overview P. 5. lasc.org
  43. ↑ "Defending the Right to Self-Representation: An Empirical Look at the Pro Se Felony Defendant by Erica J. Hashimoto, University of Georgia School of Law 2006".
  44. 1 2 3 4 "State Court Pro Se Statistic".
  45. ↑ "US Bankruptcy Court of Arizona: 2011 Pro Se Case Filings" (PDF).
  46. ↑ 648 F2d 986 Cofield v. City of Atlanta, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
  47. ↑ Odom v. Petties 04-cv-889F WDNY 1/29/08
  48. ↑ "Robert Kearns, Inventor of Intermittent Windshield Wipers...con't.".
  49. ↑ [San Francisco Municipal Court, Civil Case 780080, Albertson v. Stypmann, et al.]
  50. 1 2 "Pro Se" (PDF).
  51. ↑ ACCESS TO JUSTICE IS RESTRICTED A Call For Revolution October 21, 2010, Remarks by John L. Kane, U.S. Senior District Judge, Addressed To The Faculty of Federal Advocates, Arraj U.S. Courthouse, Denver, Colorado, http://facultyfederaladvocates.org/downloads/1010_kane_accesstojustice.pdf …pp 4-5
  52. ↑ Begg, Robert T. (1976). "The Reference Librarian and the Pro Se Patron". Law Library Journal 69: 29.
  53. ↑ Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991).
  54. ↑ Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 435 (1991), citing Gonzalez v. Kangas, 814 F. 2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987); Smith v. DeBartoli, 769 F. 2d 451, 453 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1067 (1986); Turman v. Tuttle, 711 F. 2d 148 (10th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); Owens-El v. Robinson, 694 F. 2d 941 (3d Cir. 1982); Wright v. Crowell, 674 F. 2d 521 (6th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Cofield v. Atlanta, 648 F. 2d 986, 987-988 (5th Cir. 1981); Lovell v. Snow, 637 F. 2d 170 (1st Cir. 1981); Davis v. Parratt, 608 F. 2d 717 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam).
  55. ↑ Krislov v. Rednour, 97 F. Supp. 2d 862, 867 (N.D. Ill. 2000)
  56. ↑ Bond v. Blum, 317 F.3d 385, (4th Cir. 2003).
  57. ↑ Blazy v. Tenet, 338 U.S. App. D.C. 300 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
  58. ↑ "FRCP Rule 54. Judgment; Costs".
  59. 1 2 CRS. "Awards of Attorneys’ Fees by Federal Courts and Federal Agencies" (PDF).
  60. ↑ "Fox v. Vice, #10-144, 2011 U.S. Lexis 4182".
  61. ↑ "Attorneys’ Fees in Federal Civil Rights Lawsuits" (PDF).
  62. ↑ "FRCP Rule 11".
  63. ↑ "Pro Se Guide - South Carolina" (PDF).
  64. ↑ See, e.g. Superior Court of California - County of Los Angeles lasuperiorcourt.org with various self-help links.
  65. ↑ "selfhelpsupport redirect".
  66. ↑ Unauthorized Practice of Law
  67. 1 2 Patricia A. Garcia, "Litigants without Lawyers" "Organizations Involved in pro se issues" Resources, American Bar Association, 2002, ISBN 1-59031-061-6, p. 26
  68. ↑ Louis M. Brown Award for Legal Access | Division for Legal Services
  69. ↑ MNbar.org
  70. 1 2 "PACER".
  71. ↑ "Pro Se Litigant Guide" (PDF).
  72. ↑ "Civil Rights Complaint Guide" (PDF).
  73. ↑ "Pro Se Guide".
  74. ↑ "US District Court of Idaho - PRO SE HANDBOOK".
  75. 1 2 "Google Scholar".
  76. ↑ "An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment".
  77. ↑ http://www.alsb.uscourts.gov/ALSB%20pro%20se%20guide.pdf
  78. ↑ http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/rules/proselit-guide.pdf
  79. ↑ http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/assets/Pro_Se/ProSeGuide.pdf
  80. ↑ http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/web/DCDOCS/Forms/pro_se_instructions.pdf
  81. ↑ "Page Not Found" (PDF).
  82. ↑ azcourts.gov/selfservicecenter/SelfServiceForms.aspx
  83. ↑ http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/docs/documents/...court.../acc-pro-se-filing-guide
  84. ↑ http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS_ProSeBestPracticesSRLN.pdf
  85. ↑ Michaud & Aynesworth 1999, p. 274.
  86. ↑ Nelson 1994, p. 87, 91.
  87. ↑ Michaud & Aynesworth 1999, p. 10.
  88. ↑ "Edward Lawson".
  89. ↑ "KOLENDER v. LAWSON". Findlaw.
  90. ↑ 1921 Tulsa Race Riot — CNN
  91. ↑ 1921 Tulsa Race Riot — OSU Library
  92. ↑ Robert Kearns, 77, Inventor of Intermittent Wipers, Dies, Associated Press, New York Times, 2/26/05 nytimes.com
  93. ↑ Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System.
  94. ↑ Traficant guilty of bribery, racketeering, CNN, April 12, 2002.
  95. ↑ Jonathan Chait | The New Republic
  96. ↑ "Documents".

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Thursday, March 31, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.