http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/05/whats-happening-with-canadian-self-help-law/ news, views and info on self-help law and pro se litigation Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:11:37 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/05/whats-happening-with-canadian-self-help-law/comment-page-1/#comment-68 shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » learning from Canadian judges and the self-represented Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:51:34 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/05/whats-happening-with-canadian-self-help#comment-68 [...] david giacalone - October 21, 2006 @ 1:47 pm · Resources-Practitioner, Studies & Reports If shlep gave out homework assignments, we would certainly include “Judicial Assistance to Self-Represented Parties: Lessons from the Canadian Experience” (2006, 44-pp, pdf.).  The paper is written Prof. Jona Goldschmidt, of Loyola University Chicago’s criminal justice department, who was lead author of Meeting the Challenge of Pro Se Litigation: A Report and Guidebook for Judges and Court Managers (1998).    It proves our point earlier this month that the Canadian bench and bar frequently have some very good lessons to teach their American counterparts.  Canadian Experience points out that, unlike under U.S. law and judicial ethics, Canadian judges have a duty, not merely a right, to provide reasonable assistance to pro se litigants to ensure a fair trial.  I’ll save the particulars for later postings, but urge you to read Goldschmidt’s description of the evolution of the judicial role toward the self-represented, along with details about the very few attempts in the USA to create protocols for judges faced with pro se litigants.   The 44-page report includes a lengthy appendix, with charts showing Required, Permitted, and Impermissable assistance by judges in Canadian courts, in both criminal and civil matters.  (You can find much more on pro se issues and the judiciary at the American Judicature Society resources page, and also in materials gathered for a recent access-to-justice conference,on the role of judges and best practices in the courtroom, which was hosted by the NYS Judicial Institute.) [...] [...] david giacalone – October 21, 2006 @ 1:47 pm · Resources-Practitioner, Studies & Reports If shlep gave out homework assignments, we would certainly include “Judicial Assistance to Self-Represented Parties: Lessons from the Canadian Experience” (2006, 44-pp, pdf.).  The paper is written Prof. Jona Goldschmidt, of Loyola University Chicago’s criminal justice department, who was lead author of Meeting the Challenge of Pro Se Litigation: A Report and Guidebook for Judges and Court Managers (1998).    It proves our point earlier this month that the Canadian bench and bar frequently have some very good lessons to teach their American counterparts.  Canadian Experience points out that, unlike under U.S. law and judicial ethics, Canadian judges have a duty, not merely a right, to provide reasonable assistance to pro se litigants to ensure a fair trial.  I’ll save the particulars for later postings, but urge you to read Goldschmidt’s description of the evolution of the judicial role toward the self-represented, along with details about the very few attempts in the USA to create protocols for judges faced with pro se litigants.   The 44-page report includes a lengthy appendix, with charts showing Required, Permitted, and Impermissable assistance by judges in Canadian courts, in both criminal and civil matters.  (You can find much more on pro se issues and the judiciary at the American Judicature Society resources page, and also in materials gathered for a recent access-to-justice conference,on the role of judges and best practices in the courtroom, which was hosted by the NYS Judicial Institute.) [...]

]]>