Lost faith in the court system
LThe State Bar of Georgia has been studying the rise of pro se litigants and ways to help. There are discussions about setting up centers in each judicial circuit that would assist pro se litigants. This needs to be done now.
aws are written by lawyers for lawyers and not for the layperson. The laws are written so that it is difficult for a layperson to get any justice through our judicial system.
All states have laws that guarantee lawyers make a good living by making it difficult or almost impossible for a layperson to present a case in court. Our court system was set up so that a court can apply the law of a state and settle disputes. The courts are also responsible for upholding the rights of citizens and seeing that no one, including the government, violates them.
Yet, the courts rarely uphold the rights of a layperson. Many judges fail to protect those people who are not attorneys, but turn to the court to settle an issue when they were injured. These people are known as pro se litigants. Not everyone can afford to pay an attorney at $250-$350 an hour, but they still need their day in court. For many pro se litigants that never happens because a judge favors the side that has an attorney. It’s the “old boys club” system where judges protect other judges and grant favors to attorneys over pro se litigants.
The biggest problem is that Georgia has ridiculous laws regarding the “practice of law.”
This prevents a pro se from getting any assistance, except by an expensive attorney. The law says that it is unlawful for any person other than a duly licensed attorney to practice or appear as an attorney for any person other than himself in any court of this state; to render or furnish legal services or advice; to render legal services of any kind in actions or proceedings of any nature.
You can bandage a wound for another person and not be charged with practicing medicine without a license. You can look up a disease and tell another what you suggest that they do for it. A medical advice mistake could cause another person their life, yet it is perfectly legal. Compare this to helping someone with a legal matter.
You can teach your children at home or assist a neighbor’s child with schoolwork without being charged with teaching without a license, although your actions could have a life long effect on the child. Compare this to providing a service for someone with a legal matter.
You can prepare a person’s income tax and not be charged with practicing accounting without a license, although the other person could be charged by the IRS for incorrect taxes with financial penalties. Compare this to preparing something for someone in a legal matter.
These laws are in direct contradiction of the first and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The first amendment grants us the freedom for speech. Yet, the Georgia legal practice laws prevent any discussion between a litigant and another layperson. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. This means that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances. If an individual can ask others for advice on many subjects (medical, education, etc.), then they should have the right to ask anyone for legal advice or assistance. Georgia law is contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
Some Georgia judges do everything they can to prevent a litigant from getting nonattorney assistance. These judges rule in favor of an attorney over a pro se litigant and many times ignore well-written and legally sound documents just because the litigant is pro se.
By ignoring Georgia statutes and established case law presented by a pro se litigant, judges commit obstruction of justice. They permit the preferred party to break the rules and get away with it. How do judges regularly escape the consequences, when violating their oaths of office when carrying out their own bias instead of enforcing the law? How are they able to escape the consequences when they make their own rules instead of enforcing the U.S. Constitution?
This is the oath for a Georgia judge: “I swear that I will administer justice without respect to person and do equal rights to the poor and the rich and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as judge of the superior courts of this state, according to the best of my ability and understanding, and agreeably to the laws and Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States.”
Pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally and pro se litigants should be granted greater latitude in hearings and trials, but they are not in our local courtrooms. Individual judicial circuits offer little guidance to their judges, concerning how to rule on procedural issues in pro se cases. There is no absolute due process right to counsel in civil cases. The obvious solution would be to appoint counsel to civil pro se litigants to assist them in a support role.
There needs to be judicial notification to pro se litigants of procedural requirements. Of course, pro se litigants deserve the minimum due process rights to which all other litigants are entitled. The most significant of these rights is an opportunity to be heard, granted a meaningful time to be heard and in a meaningful manner. Other minimum due process protections include the requirement of adequate notice, the right to a neutral and detached decision-maker, and the right to present evidence and confront and cross-examine witnesses.
The State Bar of Georgia has been studying the rise of pro se litigants and ways to help. There are discussions about setting up centers in each judicial circuit that would assist pro se litigants. This needs to be done now.
The strict laws regarding layman assistance to a pro se litigant should also be changed.