Advisory to the Pro Se Litigant #14: Combatting the Other Side's Ridiculous Motion

If your opponent files a motion, you are expected to respond. A failure to timely respond would be perceived by the court as a concession on your part. Although you might think it self-evident that the facts outweigh a motion to dismiss or summary judgment, the judge is not all-knowing. He or she does not know what facts you have until you present them to him or her. In addition, the court might interpret a failure to respond as an indication you are not interested in further pursuing the case. Courts expect you to respond clearly to both the legal and factual assertions of the other party. Attorneys usually do this by (1) filing a brief asserting each legal argument that opposes the summary judgment motion, (2) filing a statement of facts which are in dispute between the parties, and (3) a response to the statement of facts proposed by the moving party. The clearer your response, with citations to the evidence –and the evidence attached—the more likely you are to succeed at your opposition to the motion. In writing your opposition to the summary judgment motion, or motion to dismiss, you should remind yourself that the court will not engage in any independent research into your situation. Consequently, any witness statements or other evidence you want the court to review, must be properly filed with the court

SC Court Creates Self-Help Center With Intriguing Boundaries

On February 2, 2011, the Supreme Court of South Carolina, granted a petition of the South Carolina Access to Justice Commission, to create self-help centers in or near courthouses, beginning March 1, 2011. The goal here is to try to give pro se litigants with access to tools needed to advance their cases without running the risk of giving out preferential treatment to those acting without cousnel. In reading through the boundaries established by the Commission, it is clear that they were very concerned about being accused of giving special treatment to pro se litigants, or worse, effectively representing pro se litigants. For instance, the centers are prohibited from creating litigation documents requiring tactical decision-making, or assisting with other forms of litigation strategy. As an arm of the court itself, the court's credibility could be called into question if such an allegation were taken legitimized. Thus, the self-help centers are to maintain a list of lawyers to refer cases to, some able to take pro bono and some able to take low cost cases. Although this is wonderful, I am particularly pleased to read about the information being provided to pro se litigants, who often litigate without basic information about how to prosecute their cases. On cases where laws and procedures are sufficiently straight-forward, these self-help centers can help assure that the cases run smoothly through the court system and that participants in the litigation process feel they are having a fair shake. On cases where the laws and procedures are too complex for pro se litigants, or specifically those unfamilar with case law, a pro se help center can do a great job at helping a litigant realize why he or she needs counsel.