This article examines the rise of pro se litigation in American courts, focusing on the structural, procedural, and institutional factors that contribute to individuals representing themselves without legal counsel. Swank analyzes how economic barriers, access-to-justice concerns, and dissatisfaction with legal representation have increased the prevalence of pro se litigants across both civil and criminal contexts.
The article explores how courts respond to pro se participation, including the tension between procedural neutrality and judicial accommodation. Swank documents the doctrinal limits courts impose on assistance to self-represented parties and explains how procedural rules, evidentiary standards, and courtroom norms shape pro se outcomes regardless of litigant intent or belief.
By situating pro se litigation within broader discussions of court administration and legal process, the article clarifies why self-representation does not alter jurisdiction, procedural authority, or substantive legal standards. This work is frequently cited in scholarship addressing access to justice, court procedure, and the practical limits of self-representation.
Citation
Swank, D. A. (2005). The pro se phenomenon. Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 19(2), 373–411.
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law (PDF)