By Fareen L. Jamal and Jesse Lamont
Occasionally, clients are faced with situations where their spouse opts to represent her or himself. This can make an already difficult situation worse.
A self-represented party does not have the benefit of objectivity, and emotion, stress, and legal inexperience often impact their conduct. This can make for a more legal experience. When a self-represented litigant appears ignorant of the law, counsel for the represented party will need to spend increased time and provide repetitive explanations to ensure that the self-represented party understands their obligations and that there are no misunderstandings.¹ This can be very frustrating for everyone involved, particularly because it often leads to protracted negotiations.
To be fair, given that the cost of a three-day trial in Ontario is estimated at approximately $60,000, which surpasses the average per annum income of the normal Canadian family², it is not surprising that litigants are increasingly forced to represent themselves in court. Alternatively, given the increased access to free courtroom services and the proliferation of legal information laced into television shows, litigants with heavy financial burdens are often convinced that they are well equipped to represent themselves. With celebrities such as Courtney Cox and David Arquette making self-representation look easy³, some parties facing daunting legal costs may opt to represent themselves.
However, a client would never consider fixing their own root canal or performing their own open heart surgery, and particularly given the nature and complexity of family law, I could not recommend that a party represent themselves.
Mediation, collaborative family law, and other alternative dispute resolution models offer less expensive alternatives to a court trial and may be more palatable for your self-represented spouse. Given that self-representation often results in delays in divorce proceedings, which are amplified by the emotional undercurrents related to the breakdown of a relationship, mediation, ADR, and collaborative law practices offer a financially viable – and often more satisfying – surrogate to a trial.
If you find yourself in the position of dealing with an estranged spouse who opts to self-represent, consider suggesting that you resolve the dispute through mediation or that you both retain collaborative family lawyers. The short term and long term benefits are undeniable. Your funds are better spent on yourself and your children than on increased court costs.
__________________________________
¹ Fareen Jamal, “Tactical Tools for Family Advocacy,” Ontario Bar Association Continuing Professional Development, October 11, 2012.
² The Honourable Warren K. Winkler Chief Justice of Ontario, “Access to Justice, Mediation: Panacea or Pariah?” http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/speeches/access.htm on July 6, 2013.
³ “Courtney Cox and David Arquette Finalize Divorce,” Ace Showbiz, <http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00060754.html>
Fareen Jamal
Associate Lawyer
Bales Beall LLP
2501-1 Adelaide Street East
Toronto, ON
M5C 2V9
Tel: 416-203-4538
Fax: 416-203-8592
fjamal@balesbeall.com
Jessie Lamont
Summer Law Student
Bales Beall LLP
2501-1 Adelaide Street East
Toronto, ON
M5C 2V9
Tel: 416-203-4017
Fax: 416-203-8592
jlamont@balesbeall.com