Search

Courts are starting to keep data about the numbers of litigants who personally file court documents and appear without counsel. The growth in numbers of unrepresented litigants is aptly described as a phenomenon and can be attributed to various causes. Whether or not it is a ‘problem’ however, is arguable. This article explores the concept of the unrepresented litigant in a strange and unnavigable milieu and the ethical duties of lawyers as officers of the court in that context. Focussing on Australian examples, the primary aim of the article is to highlight the lack of guidance in both codes of ethical conduct and judicial commentary on ethical issues for lawyers faced with an unrepresented opponent. Ethical issues at various stages of the dispute resolution process are discussed, including the complexities involved with unbundled legal services. The author argues that as an officer of the court, counsel should assist the judicial officer and consider the situation through a lens of ethical reasoning, while recognising the dilemma this can pose for lawyers who must respect their duties to their own clients. The article concludes that lawyers must abide by their ethical responsibilities whether or not the opponent has representation, while acknowledging that this may be challenging for a variety of reasons. It also suggests that the absence of any reference to unrepresented litigants in ethical codes of conduct should be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first part of a two-part article, which calls for the removal of terms such as rights and custody, including joint and shared custody, and visitation from the legal discourse in relation to children and their parents. This part demonstrates how the current discourse, based on the competing rights of the parents, leads inevitably to competitiveness and litigation, which are highly damaging to the child. The proposed paradigm of parental responsibilities requires establishing the needs of the specific child when there are parental disharmony and separation, while emphasizing the joint responsibilities of both parents to ensure that those needs are adequately met. This part also addresses the question: who has parental responsibilities, when a child is born as a result of Assisted Reproductive Technology, and also the quasi-parental role of the court. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose -- The purpose of this paper is to discuss and examine the implications of holding mental health tribunals in public. Design/methodology/approach -- The paper discusses the functioning of tribunals, compares tribunals with other legal processes in the UK and elsewhere, and reviews the legal reasoning for holding tribunal hearings in public. Findings -- The first tribunal hearing has already been held in public and another public hearing is agreed. Public hearings should allow for greater transparency and scrutiny than has thus far been possible, and may change the behaviour of attendees. Originality/value -- Public tribunal hearings have not yet been widely discussed in the academic literature, yet are expected to have implications for all involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]