Unrepresented litigants in Singapore: A prolegomenon to court typologies

Helena Whalen-Bridge

doi:10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1148

Egileak

Helena Whalen-Bridge National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law

##plugins.pubIds.doi.readerDisplayName##:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1148

Gako-hitzak:

Unrepresented, litigant, typology

Laburpena

Unrepresented parties in litigation struggle with legal doctrine and puzzle over procedure. Judges provide some assistance in court, but they must exercise restraint so as not to raise questions of bias or favouritism. How do judges manage these interactions in the decision-making process? This article examines sample cases from one common law jurisdiction, Singapore, to identify the litigant in person (LIP) typologies in court-LIP interactions. There are likely a number of typologies that guide a court’s assessment and response to an LIP, but this article focuses on the typologies most relevant to judicial decision-making on legal issues, legal knowledge and credibility. Because legal knowledge and credibility typologies help courts evaluate LIPs, they assist courts to make decisions regarding unrepresented parties and allow cases to proceed to judgment. However, the typologies are not able to completely address the deficiencies LIPs bring to the dispute resolution process.

##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##

##plugins.generic.usageStats.noStats##

Metrics

Views 475
Downloads:
PDF (English) 488
XML (English) 505

##submission.authorBiography##

##submission.authorWithAffiliation##

Helena Whalen-Bridge is Associate Professor, National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law. Helena teaches Legal Ethics, Common Law of Contract, and advanced skills courses. She received the NUS Teaching Excellence Award and is a longstanding member of the Law Faculty’s Teaching Excellence Committee. Helena is also an Expert in UNODC’s Education for Justice project. Helena’s research focuses on legal ethics and pro bono, access to justice, and legal narrative

Erreferentziak

Aristotle, 2004. Rhetoric 6–7. Trans.: W.R. Roberts. Mineola: Dover Thrift.

Collier, D., LaPorte, J., and Seawright, J., 2012. Putting Typologies to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytical Rigor. Political Research Quarterly [online], 65(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912437162 [Accessed 26 January 2021]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912437162

Conley, J., and O’Barr, W., 1990. Rules Versus Relationships. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Genn, H., 2013. Do-it-Yourself Law: Access to Justice and the Challenge of Self-Representation. Civil Justice Quarterly, 32(4), 411–44.

Hill, A., 2018. How legal aid cuts filled family courts with bewildered litigants. The Guardian [online], 26 December. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/dec/26/how-legal-aid-cuts-filled-family-courts-with-bewildered-litigants [Accessed 26 January 2021].

Ho, H.L., 2014. Recent (Non)-Developments in an Arrested Person’s Right to Counsel. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 267–284.

Hunter, R., et al., 2002. The Changing Face of Litigation: Unrepresented Litigants in the Family Court of Australia. Sydney: Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales.

Johansen, S.J., 2006. This is Not the Whole Truth: The Ethics of Telling Stories to Clients. Arizona State Law Journal, 38, 980–981.

Judicial Council of California. 2019. Handling Cases Involving Self-Represented Litigants (Benchguide) [online]. April. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California. Available from: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/benchguide_self_rep_litigants.pdf [Accessed 26 January 2021].

Kritzer, H.M., 2008. To Lawyer or Not to Lawyer: Is that the Question? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies [online], 5(4). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00144.x [Accessed 26 January 2021]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00144.x

McKinney, J.C., 1969. Typification, Typologies, and Sociological Theory. Social Forces [online], 48(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/2575463 [Accessed 26 January 2021]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2575463

Moorhead, R., 2007. The Passive Arbiter: Litigants in Person and the Challenge to Neutrality. Social and Legal Studies [online], 16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907079766 [Accessed 26 January 2021]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907079766

Moorhead, R., and Sefton, M., 2005. Litigants in Person: Unrepresented litigants in first instance proceedings [online]. London: Department for Constitutional Affairs, 79–82. Available from: https://orca.cf.ac.uk/2956/1/1221.pdf [Accessed 26 January 2021].

National Center for State Courts, no date-a. Center on Court Access to Justice for All [online]. Williamsburg: NCSC. Available from: https://www.ncsc.org/microsites/access-to-justice/home [Accessed 26 January 2021].

National Center for State Courts, no date-b. Self-Representation Resource Guide [online]. Williamsburg: NCSC. Available from: https://www.ncsc.org/topics/access-and-fairness/self-representation/resource-guide [Accessed 26 January 2021].

OECD, 2016. Leveraging the SDGs for Inclusive Growth: Delivering Access to Justice for All [online]. Keynote remarks by Angel Gurría, Secretary-General. New York: OECD, 18 September. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/about/secretary-general/leveraging-the-sustainable-development-goals-delivering-access-to-justice-for-all.htm [Accessed 26 January 2021].

Richardson, E., Sourdin, T., and Wallace, N., 2012. Self-Represented Litigants: A Literature Review [online]. 24 May. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2713503 [Accessed 26 January 2021]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2713503

Scottish Civil Justice Council, 2014. Access to Justice Literature Review: Party Litigants, and the Support Available to Them [online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Civil Justice Council. December. Available from: https://www.scottishciviljusticecouncil.gov.uk/docs/librariesprovider4/scjc-pubilcations/literature-review-on-party-litigants-and-the-support-available-to-them.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [Accessed 26 January 2021].

Singapore Ministry of Law, 2015. “Enhanced Criminal Legal Aid Scheme set to provide greater access to justice” Press release. 19 May. Available at: https://www.mlaw.govsg/news/press-releases/enhanced-clas-to-provide-greater-access-to-justice.

Singapore Ministry of Law, 2015. Enhanced Criminal Legal Aid Scheme set to provide greater access to justice [online]. Press release. 19 May. Available from: https://www.mlaw.govsg/news/press-releases/enhanced-clas-to-provide-greater-access-to-justice [Accessed 26 January 2021].

Smith, M., Banbury, E., and Ong, S., 2009. Self-Represented Litigants: An Exploratory Study of Litigants in Person in the New Zealand Criminal Summary and Family Jurisdictions. Research report. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Justice.

Smith, M.R., 2003. Advanced Legal Writing: Theories and Strategies in Persuasive Writing. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

State Courts of Singapore, 2013. Annual Report [online]. Available from: https://www.statecourts.gov.sg/cws/Resources/Documents/Annual%20Report%202013%20(Full%20length%20-%20HTML).pdf [Accessed 26 January 2021].

Stauber, A., 2009. Litigious Paranoia: Confronting and Controlling Abusive Litigation in the US, UK, and Australia. International Review of Business Research Papers, 5(1), pp. 11–17.

Supreme Court of Singapore, no date. Legal assistance scheme for capital offences (LASCO) [online]. Last updated January 2021. Available from: https://www.supremecourt.govsg/rules/court-processes/criminal-proceedings/legal-assistance-scheme-for-capital-offences-(lasco) [Accessed 26 January 2021].

Toy-Cronin, B., 2015. Keeping Up Appearances: Accessing New Zealand’s Civil Courts as a Litigant in Person [online]. PhD Thesis, Philosophy. Dunedin: University of Otago, Faculty of Law. Available from: https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/6003/Toy-CroninBridgetteA2015PhD.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Accessed 26 January 2021].

Trinder, L., et al., 2014. Litigants in person in private family law cases. London: Ministry of Justice, Analytical Series.

UK Ministry of Justice, 2019. Post-Implementation Review of Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) [online]. 7 February. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-implementation-review-of-part-1-of-laspo [Accessed 26 January 2021].

Williams, K., 2011. Litigants in person: a literature review. Research Summary 2/11 [online]. London: Ministry of Justice. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217374/litigants-in-person-literature-review.pdf [Accessed 26 January 2021].

Winkelmann, H., 2014. Access to Justice - Who Needs Lawyers?, Otago Law Review [online], 13(2). Available from: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/OtaLawRw/2014/2.html [Accessed 26 January 2021].

Yeo, H.Y., 1999. Provision of Legal Aid in Singapore. In: K.Y.L. Tan and G.K.Y. Chan, eds., The Singapore Legal System. Singapore University Press, p. 561.

Zorza, R., 2009. Self-Represented Litigants and the Access to Justice Revolution in the State Courts: Cross-Pollinating Perspectives Toward a Dialogue for Innovation in the Courts and the Administrative System. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary [online], 29(1). Available from: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol29/iss1/3/ [Accessed 26 January 2021].