Talk:Pro se legal representation in the United States/Kay Sieverding case law 1
Civil law Small claims courts in many jurisdictions do not allow lawyers to represent clients in front of the judge absent special circumstances. Even in states like Texas where lawyers are permitted to litigate in small claims court, the court proceedings are typically less technical and much more conducive to pro se litigants. In civil cases there is no right to appointed counsel, although some courts do offer court lawyers in certain situations. The U.S. Supreme Court explored the question of pro se rights in 2007 in Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 127 S.Ct. 1994 (U.S. 05/21/2007). This concerned the rights of parents and disabled children to have the parents represent disabled children when the parents do not have a law license. The opinion of the court delivered by Justice Kennedy stated: “Petitioners' primary theory is that the Act makes parents real parties in interest to IDEA actions, not "mer[e] guardians of their children's rights." Brief for Petitioners 16. If correct, this allows Mr. and Mrs. Winkelman back into court, for there is no question that a party may represent his or her own interests in federal court without the aid of counsel. See 28 U. S. C. §1654 ("In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel) . . . the Act leads to the necessary conclusion that parents have independent, enforceable rights….The parents enjoy enforceable rights at the administrative stage, and it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme to bar them from continuing to assert these rights in federal court….the Act does not sub silentio or by implication bar parents from seeking to vindicate the rights accorded to them once the time comes to file a civil action. Through its provisions for expansive review and extensive parental involvement, the statute leads to just the opposite result….IDEA defines one of its purposes as seeking "to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected." §1400(d)(1)(B). The word "rights" in the quoted language refers to the rights of parents as well as the rights of the child; otherwise the grammatical structure would make no sense….parent of a child with a disability has a particular and personal interest in fulfilling "our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities."… We instead interpret the statute's references to parents' rights to mean what they say: that IDEA includes provisions conveying rights to parents as well as to children…Judicial review follows, authorized by a broadly worded provision phrased in the same terms used to describe the prior stage of review: "[a]ny party aggrieved" may bring "a civil action."… IDEA does not differentiate, through isolated references to various procedures and remedies, between the rights accorded to children and the rights accorded to parents. As a consequence, a parent may be a "party aggrieved" for purposes of §1415(i)(2) with regard to "any matter" implicating these rights. See §1415(b)(6)(A). The status of parents as parties is not limited to matters that relate to procedure and cost recovery. To find otherwise would be inconsistent with the collaborative framework and expansive system of review established by the Act….The bifurcated regime suggested by the courts that have employed it, moreover, leaves some parents without a suggested by the courts that have employed it, moreover, leaves some parents without a remedy…..Parents may seek to enforce this mandate through the federal courts, we conclude… IDEA grants parents independent, enforceable rights….Respondent argues our ruling will, as a practical matter, increase costs borne by the States as they are forced to defend against suits unconstrained by attorneys trained in the law and the rules of ethics. Effects such as these do not suffice to invoke the concerns under the Spending Clause. Furthermore, IDEA does afford relief for the States in certain cases. The Act empowers courts to award attorney's fees to a prevailing educational agency whenever a parent has presented a "complaint or subsequent cause of action . . . for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation." §1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III). This provision allows some relief when a party has proceeded in violation of these standards…The Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the Winkelmans' appeal for lack of counsel. Parents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf. The decision by Congress to grant parents these rights was consistent with the purpose of IDEA and fully in accord with our social and legal traditions.” In another Supreme Court case, they wrote: review follows, authorized by a broadly worded provision phrased in the same terms used to describe the prior stage of review: "[a]ny party aggrieved" may bring "a civil action."… IDEA does not differentiate, through isolated references to various procedures and remedies, between the rights accorded to children and the rights accorded to parents. As a consequence, a parent may be a "party aggrieved" for purposes of §1415(i)(2) with regard to "any matter" implicating these rights. See §1415(b)(6)(A). The status of parents as parties is not limited to matters that relate to procedure and cost recovery. To find otherwise would be inconsistent with the collaborative framework and expansive system of review established by the Act….The bifurcated regime suggested by the courts that have employed it, moreover, leaves some parents without a suggested by the courts that have employed it, moreover, leaves some parents without a remedy…..Parents may seek to enforce this mandate through the federal courts, we conclude… IDEA grants parents independent, enforceable rights….Respondent argues our ruling will, as a practical matter, increase costs borne by the States as they are forced to defend against suits unconstrained by attorneys trained in the law and the rules of ethics. Effects such as these do not suffice to invoke the concerns under the Spending Clause. Furthermore, IDEA does afford relief for the States in certain cases. The Act empowers courts to award attorney's fees to a prevailing educational agency whenever a parent has presented a "complaint or subsequent cause of action . . . for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation." §1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III). This provision allows some relief when a party has proceeded in violation of these standards…The Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the Winkelmans' appeal for lack of counsel. Parents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf. The decision by Congress to grant parents these rights was consistent with the purpose of IDEA and fully in accord with our social and legal traditions.” In another Supreme Court case, they wrote: "Thus, save in a few aberrant cases,*fn5 the lower courts have uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1654, providing that "parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel," does not allow corporations, partnerships, or associations to appear in federal court otherwise than through a licensed attorney." The footnote clarifies "two federal cases cited by respondent are the only two, of which we are aware, to hold that artificial entities may be represented by persons who are not licensed attorneys: United States v. Reeves, 431 F.2d 1187 (CA9 1970) (per curiam) (partner can appear on behalf of a partnership), and In re Holliday's Tax Services, Inc., 417 F. Supp. 182 (EDNY 1976) (sole shareholder can appear for a closely-held corporation), affirmance order sub nom. Holliday's Tax Services, Inc. v. Hauptman, 614 F.2d 1287 (CA2 1979). These cases neither follow federal precedent, nor have themselves been followed." JAMES ROWLAND v. CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY, 113 S. Ct. 716 (U.S. 01/12/1993) The WI Court of Appeals wrote: "Claiming that his losses were the defendants' fault, Hlavinka brought a reparations action before the Commodity Futures Trading Commission against Blunt, Ellis & Loewi, Fromm, and Pfeffer under the anti-fraud provision of the Commodity Exchange Act. *fn2 The main thrust of Hlavinka's pro se complaint ....Hlavinka's attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, and for an adjournment of the trial date in order to permit Hlavinka to retain new counsel. The motion alleged that Hlavinka and the attorney had "conflicts of interest which cannot be resolved," and that Hlavinka had "made no prior requests for adjournments." The motion further represented that the attorney had spoken with the lawyer for the defendants who "consents to this adjournment and has no opposition to this court allowing present counsel to withdraw and allowing the Plaintiff an opportunity to obtain new counsel."....Hlavinka advised the trial court and counsel for the defendants (who participated by telephone) that he had retained a new lawyer....Hlavinka appeared defendants (who participated by telephone) that he had retained a new lawyer....Hlavinka appeared for the status conference without a lawyer....Blunt, Ellis and Loewi voluntarily agreed that Mr. Hlavinka could have sixty days to find another attorney. He came in in April and said that he had not done so, but there was someone he thought could take the case. The Court said at that time he had to have an attorney by today representing him or the Court was going to dismiss the case. He does not have an attorney today. For that reason we believe we are entitled to a dismissal of this case, and we move for a dismissal....Hlavinka responded by recounting the difficulty he was having in finding a lawyer that he could afford. He then told the trial court that he wanted to represent himself, and that he was "ready to begin whenever the Court would set" a trial date: "I know I asked for late '92, but if asking for late '92 means a dismissal, then I am prepared to go forward at any time that the Court says."...Every natural person in Wisconsin has an absolute right to appear pro se. WIS. CONST. art. I, § 21(2) ("In any court of this state, any suitor may prosecute or defend his suit either in his own proper person or by an attorney of the suitor's choice."). Thus, it was error for the trial court to base dismissal of Hlavinka's action in whole or in part on Hlavinka's failure to retain counsel. Additionally, although the trial court does, of course, have the power, both inherent and statutory, to prevent unwarranted delay and the proliferation of stale lawsuits, see Rule 805.03, Stats.; Lawrence v. MacIntyre, 48 Wis. 2d 550, 556, 180 N.W.2d 538, 541 (1970), the withdrawal of Hlavinka's attorney, and Hlavinka's subsequent difficulty in retaining new counsel only minimally delayed the prosecution of his claims against the defendants. Indeed, as we have seen, Hlavinka specifically told the trial court that he was prepared to try the case pro se "at any time that the Court says." In light of this, and in view of the grant by the Wisconsin Constitution of the right to appear in court pro se, it can hardly be said that either the record or the law supports the trial court's Conclusion, as recited in its order of dismissal, that Hlavinka "has failed to meet his burden of advancing this case for trial." The order of dismissal is reversed." 02/02/93 RONALD P. HLAVINKA v. BLUNT
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Pro se legal representation in the United States/Kay Sieverding case law 1" page.
