A person fills out family court forms incorrectly, misses filing deadlines they did not know existed, and loses custody not because their case lacked merit but because they could not navigate procedure. Another uses a court self-help center to complete divorce paperwork successfully, avoiding thousands in legal fees while reaching a fair settlement. Someone asks the judge for guidance during their hearing and is told the court cannot provide legal advice, leaving them confused about what to do next. A duty counsel lawyer spends fifteen minutes explaining the basics before a case, enough to prevent catastrophic errors but nowhere near the representation that proper counsel provides. The number of self-represented litigants has grown dramatically as legal costs have outpaced incomes, transforming courts designed for lawyers into spaces where untrained people attempt to advocate for themselves. Whether systems should adapt extensively to support them or whether self-representation fundamentally compromises justice remains contested.
The Case for Robust Self-Help Infrastructure
Advocates argue that self-represented litigants are now the majority in many family and civil courts, making support for them a system necessity rather than optional accommodation. Most will never afford lawyers, so the choice is between helping them navigate proceedings or denying them access to justice entirely. Court self-help centers staffed by legal professionals can provide information on procedures, help with form completion, and explain options without crossing into legal advice. Plain language court forms with clear instructions reduce errors that tank cases on technicality. Online tools that guide people through legal processes step-by-step make basic matters like uncontested divorce or small claims accessible without representation. Simplified procedures for routine matters eliminate unnecessary complexity that serves lawyers more than justice. Judges allowing reasonable flexibility for self-represented litigants, explaining procedure as they go, and focusing on substantive issues rather than technical compliance enable people to have their cases heard. From this view, courts serve the public, and when the public cannot afford lawyers, courts must adapt. Countries with comprehensive self-help systems demonstrate that they work, improving outcomes for self-represented litigants while reducing court time spent on procedural confusion.
The Case for Representation as Non-Negotiable
Others argue that self-representation in complex legal matters is fundamentally inadequate, and support systems that enable it simply mask how badly people are being served. Legal training takes years for good reason. Law is complex, fact-specific, and filled with non-obvious rules that determine outcomes. Self-represented litigants make mistakes that destroy otherwise valid cases: missing limitation periods, failing to properly serve documents, introducing evidence incorrectly, misunderstanding burden of proof. No amount of self-help materials can substitute for a lawyer who investigates thoroughly, develops strategy, and presents cases effectively. From this perspective, courts helping self-represented litigants navigate proceedings creates appearance of fairness while producing unjust outcomes. Judges cannot assist one party without compromising neutrality. Court staff providing legal information risk unauthorized practice of law. Moreover, simplified procedures that work for straightforward cases break down when matters become contested or complex. The solution is not better self-help tools but ensuring everyone who needs a lawyer can access one through expanded legal aid, pro bono requirements, and recognition that meaningful access to justice requires professional representation.
The Neutrality Dilemma
Judges and court staff face impossible situations when one party has a lawyer and the other represents themselves. Helping the self-represented litigant understand procedure appears to favor one side, yet not helping means proceedings become farce where people lose because they do not know how to present evidence or make legal arguments. Some judges intervene extensively, asking questions, explaining rules, and ensuring self-represented parties can be heard. Others maintain strict neutrality, treating self-represented litigants identically to lawyers and letting them fail when they cannot meet procedural requirements. Neither approach satisfies. Too much help compromises impartiality. Too little help denies meaningful participation. Court staff face similar tensions: providing information that helps versus offering advice that crosses professional boundaries. The line between acceptable assistance and inappropriate advocacy is unclear, leaving both court personnel and self-represented litigants uncertain about what help is permitted.
The Question
If most people in family and civil courts cannot afford lawyers, does that mean courts must transform to support self-representation, or does it prove that access to justice requires ensuring everyone can afford legal help? Can self-help tools, simplified procedures, and court assistance ever enable non-lawyers to participate fairly in adversarial proceedings designed for professional advocates? And when helping self-represented litigants navigate procedure conflicts with judicial neutrality, what matters more: maintaining the appearance of impartial proceedings or ensuring people can meaningfully participate in cases that profoundly affect their lives?