Recent news stories have been buzzing about the implications of Dellen Millard, the person accused of murdering Laura Babcock some years ago, foregoing counsel and choosing to act as a self-represented defendant. Much of the concern over this interesting strategy regards the court process for examining witnesses. In Criminal Court proceedings, an accused is entitled by law to cross-examine any of the witnesses called by the prosecution. For the Laura Babcock case this means the accused has the right to personally question persons such as the victim's father. While this may cause unease to some for moral reasons, there is a bigger issue at play when self-represented litigants proceed to trials.

The proposed advantages of self-representation, namely the decreased cost to the litigant, are at odds with the judicial system as a whole. Costs are actually increased when one party is self-represented. This is due to that person being unaware of the strict procedures that must be followed in litigation. The strict procedures come from legislation, meaning departures from them are rare and require alternative rules to override them.

The savings that a self-represented litigant may appreciate in not having to pay for a lawyer to represent themselves are not actually costs eliminated in whole, but rather costs that are avoided by one party only to be borne by the opposing party and the court system.

A trial where one party is self-represented will be lengthier and therefore costlier. A self-represented litigant is not going to understand the law and its procedures well enough to understand which material needs to be pleaded and which do not. This results in that litigant over-filing, which forces the opposing counsel and the court to spend more time sifting through materials that no value to the lawsuit.

These litigants continue to cause more delays throughout the actual trial. Not only will a judge have to take time to provide instructions to the litigant throughout the trial, but the litigant themselves will be slower to examine and cross-examine because they will not understand things such as how to phrase questions, how to establish facts, and generally what they need to achieve. They are unable to perform efficiently at trials because they do not have the legal training and experience necessary. Not only does a longer trial increase the lawyer's fees for the opposing party, but it decreases the amount of cases that a judge can hear.

Beyond financial implications of litigation involving a self-represented party, the self-represented litigant is ultimately at a disadvantage when they go to advocate their interests and rights. Not understanding the law and the strict procedures, such litigants are at an exponentially high risk for getting their cases dismissed on summary judgment. Litigants who fail to properly plead materials are at risk for having their cases dismissed given the increase in the availability and the court's determinations on summary judgment. Further, for cases which are not dismissed on summary judgment, the self-represented litigant is vulnerable because decision-making does depend on whether evidence was adduced and organized alongside arguments on the law.

While self-represented litigants, such as Dellen Millard, may appreciate being in control of their trials and advocating their own interests, they have a significant effect on legal proceedings which are not in line with justice. They cause increased expense for the opposing party, take up an increased amount of time and resources of the court which limits the volume of cases the court can hear, and, ultimately, they place the self-represented litigant at risk of having their cases adjudicated without the court having received a well-informed, appropriate legal argument and all its accouterments.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.