Pro Se Litigants

In recent weeks, I have been dealing with a number of cases involving pro se litigants. On one hand, that is not particularly uncommon in our firm's practice: We defend many claims against medical professionals in the correctional care setting, and many of those cases are brought by unrepresented plaintiffs. As one might imagine, there is a wide variety of skill level among pro se prisoners who initiate litigation against their prison medical providers. I have found the abilities of some of these plaintiffs rather remarkable.

More recently, I have been handling cases in which a plaintiff has been represented by an attorney who initiated suit and subsequently withdrawn, for various reasons. Such cases create difficulties which are unique and distinct from claims which are handled start to finish by pro se plaintiffs. In any event, my dealings with pro se litigants has prompted the following observations:

1. Attorneys must be just as circumspect, diligent and "by the book" in dealing with pro se litigants as they are with opposing counsel. Perhaps even more so. Informal agreements during litigation are commonplace among counsel, and the duty of professionalism, coupled with the trust that should develop between opposing attorneys if we are doing our jobs right, accommodate such agreements. Informal agreements are much less practicable with a pro se litigant, and observing a lack of formality in dealing with unrepresented parties can extend the litigation and make resolution more difficult.

2. It helps to treat pro se litigants with respect. My impression is that unrepresented parties often expect to be taken advantage of by opposing counsel. Demonstrating some level of respect and understanding, and attempting to patiently and dispassionately explain my client's position to the unrepresented party, has sometimes helped to reduce mistrust and improve communication with him or her.

3. Pro se litigants create big problems for judges. Judges understand that the fact that a plaintiff is unrepresented in a civil action probably does say something about the merits of the claim: If you can't find a single attorney to represent you, that suggests that you don't have a good case. Many years ago, I heard a judge say that she simply would not permit an unrepresented plaintiff to go to a jury trial because the risk of extensive error and the waste of resources for a case that did not even merit an attorney. The catch is that the judges need defense counsel to do smart things to bring the case to a point of resolution well before trial. So, see Number 1 above. We need to engage in discovery and pursue dismissal of claims on the merits as diligently, if not more diligently, than we would in a case with a represented plaintiff. Alternatively, the likelihood of dismissal for failure to prosecute is greater in a case brought by a pro se plaintiff---but only if defense counsel presses for discovery and seeks to move the case along promptly.

Indiana: The Most Pro-Adoption State?

Regardless of which side of the political fence you sit, Governor Pence should be applauded for his pro-adoption policies. It was reported on December 26, 2013 that Governor Pence has proposed that taxpayers benefiting from the federal adoption credit (which was recently made permanent) would also be able to claim an additional credit on their Indiana state tax return. Governor Pence has also recommended that an interim study committee be formed to explore faith-based and community adoption programs and how to better connect the state's adoption services. Governor Pence has said he wants Indiana to become the nation's "most pro-adoption state."