In this case study, the litigant/Appellant’s statements that this case is about Access to Justice made in oral argument on December 11, 2024 in the Rhode Island Supreme Court fell on deaf ears. Access to justice is a fundamental principle ensuring all individuals can uphold their rights, resolve disputes, and prevent abuses of power. Yet, the judiciary faces a crisis, with 75% of cases involving at least one self-represented litigant (SRL), highlighting a systemic failure to ensure equitable legal representation. While US Supreme Court precedents, permit self-representation, the reality is, SRLs face insurmountable barriers, bias, and procedural disadvantages that significantly undermine their ability to secure fair outcomes. The case study presented here, documented the denial of legal representation due to defense counsel’s abuse of the litigation process, which discouraged attorneys from taking her case, with concerns it would force them into the role of whistleblowers under Rule 8.3. [1]
This interference violates a person’s fundamental right to contract counsel, a liberty that has been left unprotected.[2] Unlike other states, Rhode Island offers no mechanism to safeguard SRLs against misleading and unethical conduct by opposing counsel. Complaints to the Disciplinary Counsel were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, leaving no recourse beyond court-imposed sanctions, an option that isn’t granted to pro se litigants. The systemic disregard of ethical violations, judicial inaction, and refusal to discipline attorneys, emboldens misconduct, perpetuating inequities that leave SRLs vulnerable to exploitation.
In preparation for oral argument at the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the litigant/Appellant in this case study, attended well over 20 hearings. A number of those hearings were with one party being Self-represented. In one hearing when the Court was questioning a Pro se Appellant about what happened in the lower Court, in answer to a question posed by the Court the Appellant asserted, it was because she was Pro se. In response, the Court respond to the Appellant in a very loud voice, shouting at the Pro se Appellant “WE DON’T CARE .” This shocking moment is the very crux of the matter. It is why the lower court can easily make a decision with disregard for the Rules or the Law, with full confidence and knowledge that the Rhode Island Supreme Court “DOESN’T CARE” about Pro se Appellants and the Pro se will always lose to represented parties, no matter what arguments are presented, as is the case in every single appeal heard, and decisions subsequently read. There is evidence that the Self-represented do not have due process rights in the courtrooms in Rhode Island and until there is a mechanism to protect the Self-represented, they will continue to get the same treatment. This undermines public trust in the judiciary and reflects a disturbing tolerance for procedural manipulation, favoring represented parties.
Judicial Bias and Systemic Inequities Against SRLs
The judiciary’s bias against pro se litigants is evident in rulings that disregard legal precedent, dismiss valid claims, and enable unethical conduct by opposing counsel. Courts are designed to uncover facts and weigh evidence impartially, yet SRLs are often misled, ignored, or denied due process simply because they lack legal representation. Plaintiff has witnessed firsthand how courts permit represented parties to be “above the law,” using procedural complexities to obstruct access to justice rather than ensuring fair adjudication.
Even when self-represented litigants present compelling facts, follow procedural rules, and cite relevant law, they are denied favorable outcomes based solely on their lack of attorney status. This systemic bias undermines the core principles of fairness and due process, creating an uneven playing field where represented parties win, not on merit, but on procedural advantage. Judicial bias and selective enforcement of rules further exacerbate disparities, ensuring that pro se litigants remain at a severe disadvantage in civil litigation. Without reforms, the promise of equal justice under the law is broken, trapping self-represented litigants in a system that is stacked against them.
This case presents a compelling issue of substantial public interest, as it underscores the pervasive access to justice gap that denies thousands of SRLs in Rhode Island a fair opportunity to be heard. The Rhode Island Judiciary must recognize the broader implications of this case, acknowledge the systemic failings that perpetuate bias against SRLs, and take corrective action to ensure that justice is not reserved for only those with legal representation. Without meaningful intervention, the courts will continue to function not as a forum for fairness, but as an exclusive system that favors the privileged over the unrepresented. The court has an obligation to maintain neutrality and impartiality. To preserve the integrity of the legal system, substantive reforms are necessary to protect self-represented litigants from systemic abuse.
CONCLUSION
Despite that the many times this case highlighted Rules and Laws overlooked, evidence ignored, facts misconstrued, and absurd conclusions made without explanation, the treatment remained indifference. The prospect of that changing without a commitment to change by the Rhode Island judiciary is unlikely. Everything proffered stands as a testament to the belief in Access to Justice for All, and a commitment to continue to bring inequities to the forefront and to the attention of lawmakers and stakeholders as agents of change for the greater good of all the citizens of Rhode Island. Courts cannot claim neutrality while tolerating systems rigged against the unrepresented. Reform is not radical, it’s a return to core principles: fairness, accountability, and equal protection. By compelling judges and lawyers to honor their ethical duties, and their oath to the constitution, we rebuild trust in the rule of law. As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. urged, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” For SRLs, that threat continues. It’s time the judiciary reforms.
The refusal to create a Commission for Access to Justice is not an oversight. It is a choice to preserve discretion over rights, appearance over accountability, and institutional comfort over constitutional obligation. If you want to be treated fairly in a Rhode Island court you must ask for it.
[1] 8.3(a) — Reporting Lawyer Misconduct
A lawyer must report another lawyer to the appropriate disciplinary authority if the lawyer knows of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question about that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.
[2] After hiring a limited scope attorney who assured he would file an appearance before speaking to opposing counsel to settle the case, in lieu of filing the promised appearance, he provided a partial refund to avoid having to file the appearance and being required to report misconduct. Without an appearance filed, any discussion of settlement would be meaningless.