The “Legal Services Lawyers” metric includes attorneys from ALAS (in Clayton, Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb, and Gwinnett counties) and GLSP (outside the five-county metro Atlanta area served by ALAS). For the ALAS counties, the number of Legal Services Lawyers serving a given county reflects both attorneys assigned to that county and a portion of the 22.5 ALAS attorneys not assigned to a particular county; for example, Cobb County has 6 ALAS lawyers, but its total includes 1/5 of the program-wide attorneys for an additional 4.5 attorneys. By contrast, GLSP attorneys are assigned to a particular region of the state and serve several counties (e.g. attorneys from the Albany-Valdosta office service 29 counties). Thus, outside the five-county metro area, the Legal Services Lawyers total for a particular county includes GLSP lawyers who also serve other counties. GLSP totals for a given county do not include 7 statewide attorneys or the 2 attorneys serving farmworkers throughout the state.
Judges of all political stripes and at every level of government support providing lawyers for people who cannot afford them. As the late Justice Antonin G. Scalia put it, “in today’s law-ridden society, denial of access to professional legal assistance is denial of equal justice.”15 Judges support legal aid because they want to make good on providing equal justice, or coming much closer to doing so, and because they want to improve the efficient administration of justice, as well as out of self-interest.
Melville’s last novel was met mostly with ignorance. Perhaps it was Melville’s form and style, summed by his own words, “There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is the true method.” Though more true of Moby Dick than The Confidence Man, I suspect readers still didn’t quite know what to make of a novel that, despite being orderly by comparison, was nearly three-quarters dialog; without a discerna ...more
Fifty-eight Carnegie Mellon students (N = 58) were recruited (67% female; age: M = 19.71 years, SD = 2.2; 52% Caucasian, 29% Asian, 8% African American, 6% Mixed, 2% Latino, 4% Other) in exchange for course credit or $8. The statistical software package G*Power indicated that a total sample size of 52 participants would provide 80% power to detect large main effects of self-affirmation (consistent with previous research indicating large effects of self-affirmation: McQueen and Klein, 2006; Crocker et al., 2008). This research was approved by the Carnegie Mellon University Institutional Review Board, and all volunteers provided written informed consent. Six participants were dropped prior to analysis: three did not follow study instructions, and three due to technical problems.
Judges support civil legal aid as a means of ensuring that the most vulnerable people in society can have decent, safe, and healthy lives. Adversarial proceedings regularly involve basic human needs, such as shelter, food, safety, health, and child custody. They regularly affect vulnerable groups such as senior citizens, domestic violence victims, and veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.
An individual’s right to represent himself or herself in federal court is expressly codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (2018), which provides: “In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases . . . therein.” Similarly, many states have codified the rights of pro se litigants in their respective constitutions and statutes. Drew A. Swank, “The Pro Se Phenomenon,” 19 BYU J. Pub. L. 373, 375 (2005). Indeed, according to the Supreme Court, there is “no evidence that the . . . Framers ever doubted the right of self-representation, or imagined that this right might be considered inferior to the right of assistance of counsel.” Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 832 (1975).
Canon 2B. Testimony as a character witness injects the prestige of the judicial office into the proceeding in which the judge testifies and may be perceived as an official testimonial. A judge should discourage a party from requiring the judge to testify as a character witness except in unusual circumstances when the demands of justice require. This Canon does not create a privilege against testifying in response to an official summons.
Before I answer the essence of your question, the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure states and requires that “The request for admissions shall be preceded by the following statement printed in capital letters in a font size at least as large as that in which the request is printed: “FAILURE TO SERVE A WRITTEN ANSWER OR OBJECTION WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY ORCP 45 B WILL RESULT IN ADMISSION OF THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS.” I will presume that you complied with that requirement when you submitted your requests for admissions as the rule states that it “shall” be done in this manner. Sometimes things can sound nit picky but if a party fails to do something that it is required to do and fails to do so, it gives the opposing side ammunition to attack the relief you are requesting that you feel you are entitled to. You are correct, since the opposing side failed to answer your request(s), you now need to file a “Motion to Determine Sufficiency”. You should advise the court in your motion that the opposing party has failed to answer your requests and ask the court to order that each of the matters are admitted. A motion to determine sufficiency is generally geared toward answers that were submitted but possibly not sufficient and parties then move the court to order the party to provide a “sufficient” answer, but since the opposing party failed to provide any answers in your case, you should advise the court of this fact in your motion and that you would like the court to issue an order deeming the matters as admitted. I presume when you say that the opposing party “failed to answer” you mean that the party didn’t answer at all. There is a difference between “failing to answer” and submitting an insufficient answer. Be clear to the court which one it is, if the party failed to answer, so state it, but if the party provided answers that were insufficient, you need to address it in that manner and ask the court to order the opposing party to provide sufficient answers. Be sure to include a copy of the requests for admissions that you served as an exhibit to your motion for the court’s ready reference. Also, under Oregon’s Rule 46A(4) you may apply for an award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.
I don't know what type of case you have or what is at stake, financially or otherwise, but if you are suing somebody or something for money, the only time you should even consider representing yourself pro se is when you are seeking a small amount of money, as in perhaps less than 4 or 5 thousand dollars, and you have a small claims court in the location or venue where you want to sue, and the other side is not represented by legal counsel.
Canon 3A(6). The admonition against public comment about the merits of a pending or impending matter continues until the appellate process is complete. If the public comment involves a case from the judge’s own court, the judge should take particular care so that the comment does not denigrate public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, which would violate Canon 2A. A judge may comment publicly on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, but not on mandamus proceedings when the judge is a litigant in an official capacity (but the judge may respond in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 21(b)).
FERN A. FISHER is the Special Assistant for Social Justice Initiatives to the Dean at the Maurice A. Deanne School of Law at Hofstra University, and retired Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts and Director of the New York State Access to Justice Program. She is a founding member of the Metropolitan Black Bar Association and a member and past board member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the New York County Lawyers Association.
The multiple regression analysis supports both of the primary Study 2 self-compassion predictions. First, we observed a significant self-affirmation × video condition interaction [β = 1.63, t(69) = 2.20, p = 0.03], such that participants who completed a self-affirmation activity had more feelings of compassion toward the self video compared to the control writing group participants, whereas self-affirmation did not influence other-directed feelings of compassion in rating a peer storytelling video. As a follow-up test of self-affirmation effects on self-compassion in general, we ran a t-test of the subsample of participants (N = 37) who viewed their own storytelling video. Mean feelings of self-compassion were higher after self-affirmation (M = 4.38, SE = 0.22) than control writing (M = 4.26, SE = 0.25), though this analysis was not statistically significant [t(35) = -0.36, p = 0.73]. This 2-way self-affirmation × video condition interaction result was qualified by the predicted 3-way self-affirmation × video condition × trait self-compassion interaction [β = -1.74, t(69) = -2.33, p = 0.02]. Specifically, self-affirmation increased feelings of self-compassion (but not other-directed feelings of compassion toward a peer video) in participants with lower pre-existing trait levels of self-compassion (Figure Figure33). This result is consistent with the prediction that self-affirmation can help boost deficient self-resources, in this case increasing feelings of self-compassion in participants with lower trait self-compassion.
Study 2 also provides some specificity around the relationship between self-affirmation and self-compassionate feelings; we did not find evidence that self-affirmation affected more general performance perceptions of the self or peer storytelling videos, though our study may be underpowered to detect subtle differences in this dimension of self-compassion. Though we do not definitively rule out this possibility, our results suggest that self-affirmation effects may be specific to affective measures of self-compassion, which is consistent with the affective change in self-compassion we observed in Study 1.
Some pro se litigants are intelligent and sophisticated. I recall one individual who represented himself in a case that proceeded to jury trial. He proved quite capable, and the verdict was in his favor. In other cases, the pro se parties are long on emotion and short on knowledge regarding law and procedure. This puts the judge in an uncomfortable position.
You need the ability to think more in terms like, "That is A view" versus "There is my view and the wrong view." "That is A defense" versus "They don't have a defense." Being impatient or intolerant with another's view, defense or assertion appears as immaturity in the courtroom. Opposing side is supposed to have a view, defense or assertion. Many times you will deal with outrageous arguments using deceit and/or lies that would never be used as arguments outside the courtroom.