Bibliography

Report as inappropriate Your report has been received

Shared by: HC1210030600

Tags

Stats

views:: 5
posted:: 10/2/2012
language:: Unknown
pages:: 11

Public Domain

Document Sample

Last updated Jan. 16, 2003

Bibliography

Pro Se

Books

ABA STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES, RESPONDING TO THE
NEEDS OF THE SELF-REPRESENTED DIVORCE LITIGANT (1994).

ABA, ROADMAP: LITIGANTS WITHOUT LAWYERS, COURTS AND LAWYERS MEETING THE
CHALLENGES OF SELF-REPRESENTATION (2002).
Examining the trend of individuals seeking legal redress in the courts without the services of a
lawyer and the ways in which courts, lawyers, and others have begun to address this reality, and
providing examples of six model programs addressing self-representation issues.

PAUL BERGMAN & SARA BERNAN BARRETT, HOW TO REPRESENT YOURSELF IN COURT
(2001).

JONA GOLDSCHMIDT, MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF PRO SE LITIGATION: A REPORT AND
GUIDEBOOK FOR JUDGES AND COURT MANAGERS (1998).
Summarizeing the legal and ethical issues involving self-represented litigants that confront judges
and court staff, offering a detailed look at programs in eleven states designed to help self-
represented litigants, and presenting fourteen policy recommendations for courts, judges, lawyers,
and legislatures.

MANUAL FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS FOR THE FEDERAL BOARDS OF CONTRACT APPEALS, at
<http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/downloads/delivery/manualforproselitigants.pdf>.

OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES, STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, PRO PER ASSISTANCE: A
MANUAL FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND PRO BONO PROVIDERS (1994).

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL SERVICES TO MIDDLE INCOME PERSONS, STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA, THE PRO PER COUNSELING HANDBOOK (1994).

Articles

Barry Althoff, Ethical Considerations for Lawyers and Judges when Dealing with
Unrepresented Persons, WASHINGTON STATE BAR NEWS, Jan. 2000, at
<http://www.wsba.org/barnews/2000/01/ethics.htm>.
“Lawyers and judges dealing with persons who are not represented by counsel, or whose
representation is a limited representation, must satisfy various ethical standards in those dealings.
This article explores those standards, asks many questions, answers some of them, and provides
some guidance on dealing with unrepresented persons.”

Moses Apsan, Note, Assisting the Pro Se Litigant: Unauthorized Practice of Law or the
Fulfillment of a Public Need?, 28 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 691 (1983).

1
Last updated Jan. 16, 2003

Providing a history of pro se litigation and an appraisal of the constitutional underpinnings for the
right of self-representation with a particular focus on self-help divorce.

J. Baldwin, The Litigants Eye View of Small Claims Hearings, CONSUMER POLICY
REVIEW, Jan./Feb. 1998.

Margaret Martin Barry, Accessing Justice: Are Pro Se Clinics a Reasonable Response to
the Lack of Pro Bono Legal Services and Should Law School Clinics Conduct Them?, 67
FORDHAM L. REV. 1879 (1999).
Exploring the use of pro se education as a means of providing access to civil legal systems and
surveying pro se legal clinics in nine states and the District of Columbia.

Robert T. Begg, The Reference Librarian and the Pro Se Patron, 69 LAW LIB.
J. 26 (1976).
Listing various possible motivations for becoming a pro se litigant, discussing the
problems pro se users are perceived to cause for law libraries, and recommending
excluding pro se users from law libraries entirely if possible.

Nancy Biro, Meeting the Challenge of Pro Se Litigation
An Update of Legal and Ethical Issues (November 1999) (updated by Kerry
Hill, August 2000), at <http://www.ajs.org/prose/pro_legal_ethical.asp>.
This essay supplements the American Judicature Society’s publication Meeting the
Challenges of Pro Se Litigation by updating the chapter on legal and ethical issues in
pro se litigation and discusses significant new cases and developing trends since
1997. Particularly, it discusses the issues facing inmates who proceed pro se and the
right of criminal defendants to proceed pro se at the trial and appellate level; the role
judges play in a pro se litigant’s case; and the extent to which court staff may legally
assist pro se litigants.

Julie M. Bradlow, Procedural Due Process Rights of Pro Se Litigants, 55 U. CHI. L. REV.
659 (1988).

P. Bowden, DIY Litigation, THE LITIGATOR, 1995.

Justice Brown, Litigation Rules: Whose Interest Do They Serve?, 8th Annual Australian
Family Law Conference in Hobart, Oct. 24-28 (1998), at
<http://www.familycourt.gov.au/papers/html/litigation_rules.html>.

Stephanie Francis Cahill, And Justice for All, CALIFORNIA LAW BUSINESS, Apr. 19, 1999.

Stephanie Francis Cahill, Helping Pro Pers Proves a Controversial Matter, LOS
ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL, July 10, 1998.

Scarlett Caminiti, Going Pro-Se is Getting Easier, THE LEGAL REFORMER, HALT’S
MEMBERSHIP NEWSLETTER, Apr./June 1995, at 6.

Deborah J. Cantrell, Colloquium, What Does it Mean to Practice Law “In the
Interests of Justice” in the Twenty-First Century?: Justice for Interests of the Poor:
The Problem of Navigating the System Without Counsel, 70 FORDHAM L. REV. 1573
(2002).

2
Last updated Jan. 16, 2003

Concluding that increasing pro bono services is not a realistic solution to decreasing unmet
legal needs and offering detailed, applied suggestions on evaluation methodology that may be
incorporated into the designs of pro se assistance projects.

Catherine Cashen, Legal Aid and Unrepresented Litigants: A Registrar’s Perspective,
Third National Conference Hotel Sofital Melbourne, Oct. 20-24, 1998, at
<http://www.familycourt.gov.au/papers/html/cashen.html>.

Ralph C. Cavanagh & Deboarh L. Rhode, The Unauthorized Practice of Law and Pro Se
Divorce: an Empirical Analysis, 86 YALE L. J. 104 (1977).
Discussing a study of pro se litigants using self-help divorce kits or forms and comparing results
and mistakes of pro se plaintiffs with those made by licensed attorneys in divorces in some
Connecticut counties.

Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), COSCA Position Paper on Self-
Representation (2002), at <http://cosca.ncsc.dni.us/PositionPapers/selfreplitigation.pdf>.
Including recommendations on how to acknowledge the obligation of courts to self-represented
litigants and to devise an appropriate response to their increasing number.

Courts and the self-represented— the road ahead (editorial), 84 JUDICATURE 300 (2001),
available at <http://www.ajs.org/prose/pro_editorial.asp>.
“Although much has been accomplished in the three years since [the AJS’s] Meeting the
Challenge was published and the 18 months since the conference ended, some key issues need to
be addressed by judicial leaders and court managers— among them better data collection,
evaluation of assistance programs, the impact of unauthorized practice of law considerations on
court staff, and dilemmas surrounding the role of the judge in pro se litigation. Therefore, we
make the following recommendations.”

Courts of Appeals Facilitate Handling of Pro Se Cases, THE THIRD BRANCH, July 1995,
available at <http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/julttb/prose.htm>.

Robert M. Daniszewski, Coping with the Pro Se Litigant, N.H. B. J., Mar. 1995, at 46.

Roderic Duncan, Do-It-Yourself Divorce, CALIFORNIA LAWYER, Jan. 1998.

Russell Engler, And justice for All – Including the Unrepresented Poor: Revisiting the
Roles of the Judges, Mediators, and Clerks, 67 FORDHAM L. REV. 1987 (1999).
Discussing the current role of judges, mediators, and clerks in cases with unrepresented litigants
and how a fundamental change in these roles may better support justice and fairness in pro se
litigation.

Janet Fife-Yeomans, DIY Justice Make Strong Case, COURIER MAIL, Nov. 10, 1995.

Julee C. Fischer, Note, Policing the Self-Help Legal Market: Consumer Protection or
Protection of the Legal Cartel?, 34 IND. L. REV. 121 (2000).
Discussing how information technology has reshaped the ways lawyers deliver services and the
ways consumers procure them and the need for regulations to address these changes.

Margaret B. Flaherty, Note, How Courts Help You Help Yourself: The Internet and the
Pro Se Divorce Litigant, 40 FAM. CT. REV. 91 (2002).

3
Last updated Jan. 16, 2003

Examining the use of websites to facilitate pro se divorce proceedings, and surveying court and
private websites and the resources they provide to pro se litigants.

Keelin Flynn, Pro Se Dilemma: Information v. Advice, WASHINGTON STATE OAC
REPORTS, Jan. 17,1992, at 1.

John Gibeaut, Turning Pro Se, 85 A.B.A. J. 28 (1999).
Arguing that the number of unrepresented litigants is growing, but few courts have developed
policies in response.

Jona Goldsmidt, How Are Courts Handling Pro Se Litigants, JUDICATURE, Jul./Aug.
1998.

Jona Goldschmidt, The Pro Se Litigant's Struggle for Access to Justice: Meeting the
Challenge of Bench and Bar Resistance, 40 FAM. CT. REV. 36 (2002).
Examining the bar's resistance to pro se assistance programs and policies, providing
recommendations which will give pro se litigants more basic legal information and give the
judge a more active role in ensuring that all parties have equal access to justice.

John M. Greacen, Clerks, Office Staff Cannot Give Legal Advice: What Does That Mean?
10 COURT MANAGER 35-40 (1995).

-----. Legal information vs. legal advice—Developments during the last five years
(2000), at <http://www.ajs.org/prose/pro_greacen.asp>.
Greacen’s article No Legal Advice From Court Personnel What Does That Mean? “explored legal
and practical definitions of the term "legal advice" and suggested guidelines a court could give
staff members on what answers they can and cannot provide. This article reviews that article's
discussion and recommendations, as well as developments during the past five years.”

-----. No Legal Advice from Court Personnel: What Does It Mean?, 34 JUDGES’ J.
10 (1995).

-----. Self Represented Litigants and Court and Legal Services Responses to
Their Needs: What We Know, (Jul. 20, 2002), available at
<http://www.lri.lsc.gov/abstracts/020045/ps_020045.htm>.

Jean Guccione, Do-It-Yourself Divorces: Pro Pers Find Self-Service Centers Reduce
Frustrations, Save Money, LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL, Aug. 28, 1997.

Lowell K. Halverson, The Pro Se Litigant in Dissolution Cases (1996), at
<http://www.halverson-law.com/prose.htm>.
“An overwhelming number of persons are choosing to self-represent in a legal system that is not
designed for pro se litigants seeking divorces. Given that fact, there will probably need to be
adjustments in the legal process to fit the needs of citizens who are choosing not to use lawyers.
Meanwhile, there are proven strategies the lawyer can employ to countermand abuses of the legal
process by self-represented individuals.”

Paul D. Healey, In Search of the Delicate Balance: Legal and Ethical Questions in
Assisting the Pro Se Patron, 90 LAW LIBR. J. 129 (1998).

4
Last updated Jan. 16, 2003

Exploring the attitudes of librarians toward pro se library users and the underlying theories on
which those fears are based. The article concludes that the risk of being accused of unauthorized
practice of law in the library is slight, but that questions of ethics indicate that librarians should
take a hands-off approach to assisting pro se users.

Cornelious D. Helfrich, Facing A Pro Se Opponent, THE COMPLEAT LAWYER, Summer
1997.

Beth M. Henschen, Lessons from the Country - - Serving Self- Represented Litigants in
Rural Jurisdictions (AJS, 2002), at <http://www.ajs.org/prose/pdfs/Lessons_1.pdf>.
Discussing study of rural pro se litigants, noting the key findings, such as on the role of
technology, the utility of standards forms and instructions, and the need for program evaluations,
and making recommendations to address the findings.

Helen B. Kim, Note, Legal Education for the Pro Se Litigant: A Step Towards a
Meaningful Right To Be Heard, 96 YALE L.J. 1641 (1987).
Arguing that lawyers and paralegals can effectively assist the pro se litigants through educational
classes. It also examines potential issues raised under the Model Code of Professional
Responsibility and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and proposes standards that should
govern the conduct of lawyers and paralegals who assist pro se litigants.

Anne Kornhauser, Coping With a Pro Se Crisis; Judges Try to Link Lawyers With Needy
Litigants, LEGAL TIMES, Aug. 20, 1990, at 2.
Discussing the request of a group of federal judges in Washington D.C. to the private bar asking
the bar to help establish a permanent panel of lawyers who will agree to take on pro se civil cases.

Elizabeth McCulloch, Let Me Show You How: Pro Se Divorce Courses and Client
Power, 48 FLA. L. REV. 481 (1996).
Expressing concern that pro se representation courses may be an example of client
disempowerment in the guise of empowerment.

Molly McDonough, A Little Assistance Goes a Long Way for Bewildered Litigants,
CHICAGO DAILY LAW BULLETIN, Dec. 31, 1998.
Discussing the benefits of advice centers for pro se litigants staffed by attorneys on a pro bono
basis.

Ilene Mitchell, Technology and the Removal of Barriers for Pro Se Litigants, at
<http://www.judgelink.org/Insights/2000/AccessBarriers/index.html>.
Discussing the different court access barriers technology can remove, such as geographical
location, language, literacy and cost barriers.

Wayne Moore, The Self-Help Office
Describing the AARP/LCE’s Self Help Office which is a website-based delivery system that
introduces legal services back into low-income communities within DC and empowers the
residents of those communities to resolve their basic legal and non-legal matters.

Beth Lynch Murphy, Results of a National Survey of Pro Se Assistance Programs: A
Preliminary Report, at <http://www.ajs.org/prose/pro_murphy.asp>.
Discussing the results of a survey distributed at the 1999 National Conference on Pro Se
Litigation.

5
Last updated Jan. 16, 2003

The Information Service of the National Center for State Courts & Jerry Nagle, Pro Se
Litigation and Its Impact on the Courts, Information Service Memorandum, National
Center for the State Courts, Feb. 1995, at
<http://www.ncsc.dni.us/is/MEMOS/Archives/S95-0724.HTM>.
Indicating the scope of Information Service materials covering the topic of how some courts are
assisting pro se litigants.

National Center for State Courts, Access to Justice: Meeting the Needs of Self-
Represented Litigants, Civil Action (Fall 2002), available at
<http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_ProSe_CivilActionVol1No3Pub.pdf>.
Describing a study examining court processes and discussing procedural access barriers for self-
represented litigants.

George W. Overton, Lawyers as Ghosts, CHICAGO BAR ASS'N RECORD, Nov. 1995, at 41.
Suggesting that attorneys should alert the court if the pro se litigant wants to use the attorney's
services after the initial pleadings are filed.

Tina L. Rasnow, Conference, Access to Justice Conference September 11, 2001:
Traveling Justice: Providing Court Based Pro Se Assistance to Limited Access
Communities, 29 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1281 (2002).
Focusing on one Southern California court's attempt to provide greater access to underrepresented
litigants in a mixed urban and rural county northwest of Los Angeles.

Linda Ridge, The Court House Facilitation Program: King County Experience, THE
COURT MANAGER, Summer 1995.

Howard M. Rubin, The Civil Pro Se Litigant v. The Legal System, 20 LOY. U. CHI. L. J.
999 (1989).

Kathleen M. Sampson, Meeting the Challenge of Pro Se Litigation: an Update (1998), at
<http://www.ajs.org/prose/pro_sampson.asp>.
“Self-representation in court proceedings continues to grow. But, as AJS pointed out in a 1998
study, there is often a lack of consensus among legal professionals about the best way to
accommodate the self-represented.”

Bruce D. Sales, et al., Is Self-Representation a Reasonable Alternative to Attorney
Representation in Divorce Cases, 37 ST. LOUIS L.J. 553 (1993).
This article is a revised version of a report published by the American Bar Association, Self-
Representation in Divorce Cases, 1993 A.B.A. Standing Com. on the Delivery of Legal Service
Report.

Elias Stephen, Legal Word: Bias Against Pro Per Litigations: What It Is. How to Stop It,
NOLO, 1997.

John M. Stanoch, Symposium, Working With Pro Se Litigants: The Minnesota
Experience, 24 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 297 (1998).
Discussing the new programs and strategies developed in Minnesota state courts to deal with the
increase in pro se litigation.

6
Last updated Jan. 16, 2003

Stacy Stover, Legal Aid for Do-It-Yourselfers, KIPLINGER’S PERSONAL FINANCE
MAGAZINE, Nov. 1997.
Stating that pro se litigants usually fare worse than represented litigants, but finding an attorney
who will help on an as needed basis helps clients save money and obtain better results.

Seven A. Strickland, Litigation Rules: Whose Interest Do They Serve?, 8th Annual
Australian Family Law Conference in Hobart, Oct. 24-28 (1998), at
<http://www.familycourt.gov.au/papers/html/litigation_rules1.html>.

M. Sue Talia, Help Yourself, DIVORCE MAGAZINE, Fall 1997.

Mark Thompson, New Approaches: Firms Spring Up to Offer Services for Pro Pers, LOS
ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL, Feb. 2, 1995.

Robert B. Yegge, Divorce Litigants Without Lawyers, 28 FAM. L. Q. 407 (1994).
Discussing the "new reality" of extensive pro se divorce representation.

Richard Zorza, The Self-Help Friendly Court (2002), at
<http://www.zorza.net/Res_ProSe_SelfHelpCtPub.pdf>.
Making an in-depth proposal as to how courts can reformed to be more amenable to pro se
litigants.

Richard Zorza, Evaluation of Access to Justice Innovation – Six Key Questions, at
<http://www.probono.net/areas/libraryfiles/Zorza_questions.htm>.
Set of questions designed to help evaluate the effectiveness of a sel-help/pro se innovation.

Reports

ABA Report on the San Antonio Study of Legal Services Delivery Systems (1989),
available at
<http://www.abanet.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10251&prod
uctId=-12601&categoryId=-3741>.
Describes a study conducted in Bexar County, Texas, on the effectiveness of a staff
attorney program and two compensation mechanisms in which lawyers are paid reduced
fees by third parties for providing legal services to the poor.

ABA STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES, RESPONDING TO THE
NEEDS OF THE SELF-REPRESENTED DIVORCE LITIGANT (1994).

AMERICAN JUDICARE SOCIETY, MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF PRO SE LITIGATION: A
REPORT AND GUIDEBOOK FOR JUDGES AND COURT MANAGERS (1998).

REVISION PRO SE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AMERICAN JUDICATURE
SOCIETY, BASED ON “PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS” IN MEETING THE
CHALLENGE OF PRO SE LITIGATION: A REPORT AND GUIDEBOOK FOR JUDGES AND
COURT MANAGERS (2002), at
<http://www.ajs.org/prose/pdfs/Policy%20Recom.pdf>.

7
Last updated Jan. 16, 2003

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT, ARIZONA PRO PER INFORMATION SYSTEM "QUICK COURT:"
FINAL REPORT (1993).

JIM BAINBERGER ET AL., EQUAL JUSTICE…“THE NOBLEST COMMON DENOMINATOR:” A
ROADMAP FOR BUILDING AN EQUAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY (2001), at
<http://www.ajs.org/prose/pdfs/roadmap.pdf>.

WILLIAM C. BIRDSALL ET AL., ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, NEW MEXICO, THE SELF-
REPRESENTED RESOURCE CENTERS: “FACILITATED SELF-HELP” (2000), at
<http://www.ajs.org/prose/pdfs/11th_District.pdf>.

BOSTON BAR ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE ON UNREPRESENTED LITIGANTS, REPORT ON PRO
SE LITIGATION (Sept. 8, 1998), available at
<http://www.bostonbar.org/dd/pro_se_report/pro_se.PDF>.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, THE TRIAL COURT PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT
DEPARTMENT, PRO SE LITIGANTS: THE CHALLENGE OF THE FUTURE, PROBATE AND
FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT PRO SE COMMITTEE REPORT (October 29, 1997).

CONFERENCE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS (COSCA), POSITION PAPER ON SELF-
REPRESENTED LITIGATION AND TASK FORCE REPORT (August 2000), at
<http://cosca.ncsc.dni.us/position.html>.

STEPHEN COX & MARK DWYER, ABA SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DELIVERY OF LEGAL
SERVICES, A REPORT ON SELF-HELP LAW: ITS MANY PERSPECTIVES (1987) available
through
<http://www.abanet.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10251&prod
uctId=-12600&categoryId=-3741>.
Analysis of a comparative study of the use of attorney representation and self-representation in no-
fault divorces and simple bankruptcy actions in Maricopa County, Arizona.

JOHN DEWAR ET AL., FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA, LITIGANTS IN PERSON IN THE FAMILY
COURT OF AUSTRALIA, 2000 (Research Report No.20), copy available upon request at
<http://www.familycourt.gov.au/papers/html/research.html>.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA, STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF LEGAL AID CUTS ON THE
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AND ITS LITIGANTS (RESEARCH REPORT NO.19), copy
available upon request at, <http://www.familycourt.gov.au/papers/html/research.html>.

HELEN GAMBLE & RICHARD MOHR, LITIGANTS IN PERSON IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF
AUSTRALIA AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL: A Research Note, Paper
presented to the Sixteenth AIJA Annual Conference Melbourne, 4 - 6 September 1998, at
<http://www.uow.edu.au/law/crt/litigants.html>.
Study undertaken to evaluate the impact of litigants in person on the management of the courts.

GEORGIA JUDICIAL COUNCIL, PRO SE LITIGATION COMMITTEE: REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (Dec. 10, 1998).

8
Last updated Jan. 16, 2003

BETH M. HENSCHEN, LESSONS FROM THE COUNTRY: SERVING SELF-REPRESENTED
LITIGANTS IN RURAL JURISDICTION (2002), at
<http://www.ajs.org/prose/pdfs/Lessons_1.pdf>.
This report with recommendations details the strengths, barriers and lessons learned from rural
jurisdictions’ efforts to assist pro se litigants. The findings are based on telephone interviews with
over 100 judges, court clerks and administrators, assistance-program staff and program partners at
25 rural programs in 17 states. The report also includes tips for planning and implementing an
assistance program (“Advice from the Country”), as well as a discussion of the impact of
geographic distance and professional isolation, and the ethical concerns of judges, court clerks and
attorneys.

ROSEMARY HUNTER ET AL., THE CHANGING FACE OF LITIGATION: UNREPRESENTED
LITIGANTS IN THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (Law and Justice Foundation of New
South Wales, 2002), available through
<http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/publications/research/cfl/cfl_sum.html>.
Describing and reporting the results of a quantitative study examining the growth in the number
of unrepresented litigants, the characteristics of people who are unrepresented, partly represented
or fully represented, and the cases in which they were involved; and a qualitative study of 152
appeal cases to look at the experiences and conduct of cases involving unrepresented litigants.

ELEANOR LANDSTREET ET AL., DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE PROCEDURES FOR PRO SE
MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 1991).

MICHIGAN STATE COURT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, PRO SE FORMS AND INSTRUCTION
PACKETS: PROVIDING IMPROVED ACCESS TO MICHIGAN COURTS: FINAL REPORT (Lansing,
MI: Michigan Supreme Court, 1994).

BETH LYNCH MURPHY, RESULTS OF A NATIONAL SURVEY ON PRO SE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS, A PRELIMINARY REPORT (1999), at
<http://www.ajs.org/prose/pro_murphy.asp>.

A NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PRO SE LITIGATION: REPORT AND UPDATE, April 2001.
The report provides an overview of national pro se activities and discusses key initiatives that
emerged from the state action plans developed at the conference and how those initiatives may
develop in the future.

MARY MERVAT REBEHY, UNREPRESENTED PARTIES AND THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
TRIBUNAL: A SURVEY OF TRIBUNALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE, (Law
Foundation of New South Wales, 2000), at
<http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/publications/reports/eot/index.html>.

SALES ET. AL, SELF-REPRESENTATION IN DIVORCE CASES: A REPORT FOR THE ABA
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES (1993).

STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ALL TASK FORCE, SERVICE DELIVERY
SUBCOMMITTEE WORK GROUP F – SELF-HELP REPORT (Apr. 2000), at
<http://www.michbar.org/access/sds/self_help.pdf>.

9
Last updated Jan. 16, 2003

WISCONSIN PRO SE WORKING GROUP, MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF SELF-REPRESENTED
LITIGANTS IN WISCONSIN (2000), at
<http://www.courts.state.wi.us/media/reports/pro%5Fse%5Freport%5F12%2D00.htm>.

Websites

The American Judicature Society (AJS), Pro Se Forum, at
<http://www.ajs.org/prose/home.asp>.
Containing list of pro se resources, conference information, information about AJS, and links to
individual state’s pro se websites.

ABA, The Delivery of Legal Services, Pro Se/Unbundling Resource Center, at
<http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/delivery/delunbund.html>.
Designed as a resource to help lawyers, bar leaders, court administrators, scholars and the media
better understand and critically analyze the issues involved in self-representation and unbundled
legal services.

National Center for State Courts, Pro Se Litigation, at
<http://www.ncsc.dni.us/KMO/Topics/ProSe/PSsummary.htm>.
Containing state links to courts and organizations that provide services for pro se litigants, links
to other pro se litigation websites, a bibliography of articles on pro se litigation, and a list of pro se
litigation reports available for borrowing through the National Center for State CourtsLibrary.

Nolo Press Self-Help Law Center, at <http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/index.cfm>.
Offering a wide selection of free information on everyday legal topics.

Northwest Justice Project, at <http://www.nwjustice.org>.
Designed to serve as “a clearinghouse of legal self-help materials and tools that provide
information about non criminal legal problems affecting low-income people in Washington State.”

Pro Se Law Center, at <http://www.pro-selaw.org/pro-selaw/index.asp>.
Acting as resource center on self-representation in civil legal matters and provides materials and
resources to create legal service delivery systems based on self-representation within federally
funded legal services programs, courts, pro bono programs, and other community-based programs.
The website further provides a directory of pro se programs operated by legal service providers;
white papers and research on this topic; and space where organizations can post questions and
receive answers from professionals who work in pro se programs.

Other Bibliographies

The American Judicature Society (AJS), Pro Se Forum, Publications and Resources, at
<http://www.ajs.org/prose/pro_resources.asp>.

ABA, Delivery of Legal Services, Pro Se/Unbundling Resource Center, at
<http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/delivery/delunbundl.html>.

Bibliography to the Conference on the Delivery of Legal Services to Low-Income
Persons: Professional and Ethical Issues, 67 FORDHAM L. REV. 2731 (1999).

10
Last updated Jan. 16, 2003

Maryland People’s Law Library, at <http://www.peoples-law.org>.

National Center for State Courts, Pro Se Litigation Bibliography, at
<http://www.ncsc.dni.us/KMO/Topics/ProSe/Resources/PSbiblio.html>.

Pro Se Law Center, at <http://www.pro-selaw.org/pro-selaw/index.asp>.

Examples of Pro-Se Self Help Websites

Arizona Self-Service Center, Phoenix, Maricopa County, at
<http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/ssc/sschome.html>.

Arizona Supreme Court's Self-Service Center, at
<http://www.supreme.state.az.us/selfserv/>.

Connecticut: Frequently Asked Questions about Self-Help, at
<http://www.jud.state.ct.us/faq/represent.html>.

Hawaii's Judiciary, at <http://www.courts.state.hi.us/index.jsp>.

Illinois Law Help, at <http://www.illinoislawhelp.org>.

New York Courts & Law Guide, at <http://www6.law.com/ny/guide>.

Pinetree Legal Assistance, at <http://www.ptla.org>.