Your Right to Self-Representation — and Why It’s Being Denied

Self-representation is a right under the Judiciary Act of 1789 that recognized the right to personally present oneself in court without a lawyer. In 1948, this right was reaffirmed under U.S.C. § 1654 which states:

“Courts favoring lawyers over SRLs is embedded structural bias. A system telling judges they “may” provide accommodations, effectively authorizes unequal treatment, depriving SRLs of constitutional protection. Fundamental rights are not optional.”

Although the language of this law “In all courts in the United Stated” pertains to Federal Courts, you have the constitutional right to Self-representation in State Courts as well.

Self-representation is a Constitutional Right

The legitimacy of self-represented participation in state courts does not depend on statutory grace but on constitutional command. The Supreme Court of the United States in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 (1975). recognized that the right to self-representation is “basic in our system of law.” Once a litigant chooses or is compelled to proceed without counsel, courts cannot treat their participation as second-class because they are without counsel. Due process and equal protection of the 5th and 14th Amendment, guarantees that self-represented litigants stand before the court both state and federal, as full participants, entitled to fair treatment and reasonable safeguards.

In the course of  litigation, I learned that the right to represent yourself in a civil court is functionally meaningless when judicial bias renders fair outcomes unattainable. When courts tolerate procedural manipulation by opposing counsel, and consistently favor represented parties, the right to self-representation becomes an illusion.

This is done with the assumption that the self-represented litigant doesn’t know or understand the Rules and the Law. If the Rules and Laws are twisted to favor the represented party, the SRL will not even know they’ve been duped.

The expectation from the Court is that you will speak up on your own behalf when that kind of manipulation is done. However, it is often done in such a sneaky, underhanded manner that the SRL may not realize they’ve been duped until later when they can examine the transcript and analyze the details of the outcome.

If it is an interlocutory decision, it cannot be appealed until the case is over and an appeal of the entire case is filed. It is only at that point that an interlocutory decision can be filed.

A Loophole Allows Disparate Treatment of SRLs.

The Rhode Island Judiciary’s website page – (Your Day in Court – “Representing Yourself”) instructs Self-represented parties:

“Although you can represent yourself, when you enter the courtroom, you are tasked with having the same knowledge of the court process as an attorney.”

By this declaration the Rhode Island Judiciary takes the liberty to provide NO ACCOMMODATIONS for SRLs Based on this language the court can decide the Pro se doesn’t measure up to attorney standards and decide against them. The rationale being, attorneys, know the law, the SRL doesn’t, it’s no contest. This is the status quo in Rhode Island and is likely the case in all seven states without a Commission for Access to Justice.

• • Delaware

• • Iowa

• • North Dakota

• • Rhode Island

• • South Dakota

• • Vermont

• • West Virginia

Since this circumstance exists I have learned that to get fair treatment a Self-represented litigant must request fair treatment, both at the start of a hearing and with a written request (a motion) filed at the beginning of the litigation asking the Court to provide accommodations and having the motion granted so it is part of the record that will override the impossible requirement that “ you are tasked with having the same knowledge as an attorney.” Accommodations you will request are:

FJC Minimal accommodations guidelines:

1. 1. Liberally construe pleadings to facilitate consideration of issues raised.
   2. Provide information/explanation about the proceedings.
   3. Eplain legal concepts in everyday language.
   4. Ask neutral questions to clarify information.
   5. Modify traditional order of taking evidence.
   6. Permit narrative testimony.
   7. Refer litigants to resources available to assist in preparation of the case or enforcement and compliance with any order.
   8. Inform litigants what will be happening next in the case and what is expected of them

Here is an example of a Motion to Ensure Fair Treatment:

Understanding Interlocutory Decisions

Interlocutory decisions resolve a specific issue or procedural matter (e.g., discovery disputes, motions to exclude evidence, preliminary injunctions), but they do not end the case or fully resolve the parties’ rights.

Only final decisions that end a case may be appealed. This sometimes happens if:

• • A Motion for Summary Judgment is granted saying that there are no disputed facts and it is only questions of law that can be decided by the judge without a trial.

• • A Motion to Dismiss is granted, depending on the reason the case was dismissed.

When this happens, the SRL is left with little recourse except to file another motion for clarification, articulation, or for entry of findings to force the judge to spell out how they made their ruling and what Facts, Rules, and Laws the decision is based upon.

The theory is that the judge is deciding on the arguments presented and the “winner” is the one who presented the best argument,  but you’ll often only receive a simple DENIED, without explanations.

A state without a Commission for Access to Justice takes complete advantage of your non-lawyer status.

The attorneys are being paid and you are not. You are seeking justice and you are the aggrieved party. If opposing counsel are not acting in good faith and abusing the process, they are making money at your expense. That is exploitation. You can file a Motion for Sanctions, to record your complaints, but a judge will never grant sanctions to a Pro se litigant against an attorney. However, making a record of the unethical conduct is important to you in the long run.

WARNING: Self-Representation Is Not for the Faint of Heart

In her judiciary journey, Judith has learned that the law is sometimes complex, but often times it is deliberately made complex, when it is really quite simple.

The court system was designed by and for those trained in its rituals, fluent in its jargon, and shielded by the privilege of professional status. Over generations, it has been shaped for lawyers, not for ordinary people.

For self-represented litigants, that can mean facing not just a legal opponent, but an entire system built to exclude you.

Tactics SRLs May Face in Court

• • Lawyers on the other side may try to overwhelm you with paperwork, delay, and obscure legalese.

• • Procedural rules can be wielded like weapons.

• • Many (not all) Judges are only comfortable hearing from attorneys rather than self-represented individuals.

When you stand up in court without a lawyer and demand that the process honor your rights, you are not just fighting your own case — you are challenging the very assumption that justice is for insiders only.

You are pushing back against a system that has long protected power and money under the guise of neutrality. And in doing so, you are helping to reshape the legal system for everyone.

Insisting on being heard, insisting on being treated fairly and with respect, is an act of resistance.

The Adversarial Model vs. SRL Needs

The adversarial model, which is two lawyers arguing while a judge referees, may work for well-funded litigants who can afford to play that game. Let them fight each other and bill their clients.

But when a self-represented litigant is involved, the system must operate differently:

• • It must slow down.

• • It must explain.

• • It must show its work.

It must return to its true purpose: delivering justice. It’s not about winning — it’s about making sure the process is fair, every voice is heard, and the truth has a chance to emerge.

Fairness, Due Process, and Equal Protection

That doesn’t mean SRLs need special treatment. It means they deserve:

• • A fair chance.

• • Due process.

• • Equal protection.

Advance notice about a hearing and its purpose is required. A hearing must not be changed in the middle into something else. A full and fair hearing must be given, with an impartial judge who makes decisions based on the FACTS, the RULES, and the appropriate LAWS.

Lessons From My Judiciary Journey

To be a self-represented litigant is to walk a hard road. It requires courage, persistence, and moral clarity.

Key Practices I Learned:

• • Learn the rules.

• • Document everything.

• • Stay focused on the truth.

• • Above all, keep going. Your voice matters.

Of all the lessons I learned during my judiciary journey, the most important is: be sure to “make a record.”

When in the courtroom, say whatever you need to say to make sure it is on the record. I always came prepared with a written argument that I read so that when there was a transcript, I could compare it with my written statement.

I didn’t have the luxury of arguing off the top of my head like a lawyer — I had to be able to verify later if what I said differed from the transcript.

Statement to Make at the Start of a Hearing

As a self-represented litigant, I learned that before a hearing begins for addressing legal issues, it’s important to state for the record:

I appear today without counsel while the opposing party is represented, and I assert my rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as well as Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) and “urner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011)Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977).

As a self‑represented litigant, there is an inherent imbalance when one party is trained in the law and the other is not. I respectfully ask the Court to ensure that no procedural, evidentiary, or credibility determinations inadvertently favor the represented party. I am not requesting special treatment, only the neutral accommodations necessary to secure equal treatment under the law. To preserve my constitutional rights, I object in advance to any rulings or procedures that reflect unequal application of court rules based on my pro se status and ask that any such disparities be noted for the record.

You are telling the judge that if anything happens in the hearing that treats you differently because you are self‑represented, you want that unequal treatment formally written into the court record.

In practice, it signals two things:

• You are preserving the issue for appeal. Appellate courts only review what is in the record.
• You are asking the judge to acknowledge any unequal application of rules, procedures, or discretion. If it happens, it should be noted so it cannot be ignored later.

It is not confrontational; it is a procedural safeguard. It tells the court: If something unfair occurs because I am pro se, it must be documented so I can challenge it later.

Protecting Your Rights in Court

I also learned that the judge may try to interrupt you while making such a statement, or ask questions to throw you off, or act annoyed to discourage you. Don’t let it deter you.

Even if interrupted, hold your place and finish your statement to protect your rights.

When representing yourself, no one is your advocate — you are your own advocate, and you are the only one protecting your rights.

If every self-represented litigant started each hearing with the above statement, a standard could be set that would prohibit judges from treating SRLs disparately.

This is what RESISTANCE looks like.