This information is not necessarily a publication of Merrill Lynch Research (ML Research), although a ML Research report may be referenced as a link or as an attachment hereto. Any summary of ML Research is qualified in its entirety by the views of ML Research and the specific disclaimers associated with that report. This information is for discussion purposes and neither the information nor any opinions expressed constitutes a solicitation by us for the purchase or sale of any securities or other financial instruments. Merrill Lynch and any affiliate may trade for its own accounts in any of the securities of issuers mentioned herein or in related investments, and may also from time to time perform or solicit investment banking or other services for, or from, any entity mentioned herein.


ESET and/or its respective suppliers, if they guarantee the Software at all, they guarantee it only in accordance with License Agreement. If not stated otherwise, ESET and/or its respective suppliers declare, that they provide the Software “as is” without warranty of any kind, including warranty of appropriateness on specific purpose and warranty of not breaking other’s legal rights. The above exceptions do not break cogent legal assignments about damage incurred.
According to Utah Judicial Council report of 2006, 80 percent of self-represented people coming to the district court clerk's office seek additional help before coming to the courthouse. About 60 percent used the court's Web site, 19 percent sought help from a friend or relative, 11 percent from the court clerk, and 7 percent went to the library. In the justice courts, 59 percent sought no help.[40]
The decisions that the jury makes are not put into effect until the judge makes a judgment, which is the approval to have this trial information be filed in public records. In a civil case, the judge is allowed at this time to make changes to the verdict that the jury came up with by either adding on or reducing the punishment. In criminal cases the situation is a little different, because in this case the judge does not have the authority to change the jury decision.
Kessler had alleged that the Duffer brothers stole his idea for the series after the trio got to talking at a reception for a 2014 screening of “Honeymoon” at the Tribeca Film Festival. Kessler said he pitched the brothers an idea for a project based on urban legends about a decommissioned military installation in Montauk, New York. He said he was stunned a year later when Netflix announced the Duffer brothers’ show, which contained similar themes and was originally titled “Montauk.”
Pro se legal representation (/ˌproʊ ˈsiː/ or /ˌproʊ ˈseɪ/) comes from Latin, translating to "for oneself" and literally meaning "on behalf of themselves", which basically means advocating on one's own behalf before a court or other tribunal, rather than being represented by a lawyer. This may occur in any court proceeding, whether one is the defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, and when one is a defendant in criminal cases. Pro se is a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself" or "on one's own behalf". This status is sometimes known as propria persona (abbreviated to "pro per"). In England and Wales the comparable status is that of "litigant in person".
In no event shell ESET and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortuous action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from the services.
Laws and organizations charged with regulating judicial conduct may also affect pro se litigants. For example, The State of California Judicial Council has addressed through published materials the need of the Judiciary to act in the interests of fairness to self-represented litigants.[9] The California rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits, even if resolution requires excusing inadvertence by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a dismissal. The Judicial Council justifies this position based on the idea that "Judges are charged with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referee ... A lawsuit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits."[10] It suggests "the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to insure a fair trial" and says "There is only one reported case in the U.S. finding a judge's specific accommodations have gone too far." The committee notes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 56 on summary judgments notes that "Many courts take extra care with pro se litigants, advising them of the need to respond and the risk of losing by summary judgment if an adequate response is not filed. And the court may seek to reassure itself by some examination of the record before granting summary judgment against a pro se litigant."[11]
In the years since this book first appeared, the number of people representing themselves in civil court cases has continued to grow. A recent collection of statistics by the National Center for State Courts shows that the vast majority of family law cases involve at least one, and often two, self-represented parties. In California, over 4.3 million people using the courts are self-represented; in New Hampshire, 85% of civil cases in the trial court involve at least one self-represented party. Many courts report an upsurge in self-representation. (Memorandum on Pro Se Statistics, 9/25/2006, National Center for State Courts, available at www.ncsconline.org/WC/publications/memos/prosestatsmemo.htm.) Other research indicates that at least one party was self-represented in more than two-thirds of domestic relations cases in California and in nearly 90% of divorce cases in Phoenix, Arizona, and Washington, DC. (See Jona Goldschmidt, et al., Meeting the Challenge of Pro Se Litigation: A Report and Guidebook for Judges and Court Managers, A Consumer Based Approach (1998).) These studies are substantiated by many civil court administrators and judges, who estimate that the number of self-represented

The Connecticut Supreme Court narrowed criminal defendant's right to self representation, stating that "we are free to adopt for mentally ill or mentally incapacitated defendants who wish to represent themselves at trial a competency standard that differs from the standard for determining whether such a defendant is competent to stand trial". A Senior Assistant State's Attorney explained that the new standard essentially allows judges to consider whether the defendants are competent enough to perform the skills needed to defend themselves, including composing questions for voir dire and witnesses.[27][28]


Foreign-currency-denominated investments are subject to fluctuations in exchange rates that could have a positive or adverse effect on the investor's return. Unless otherwise stated, any pricing information in this message is indicative only, is subject to change and is not an offer to deal. Where relevant, the price quoted is exclusive of tax and delivery costs. Any reference to the terms of executed transactions should be treated as preliminary and subject to our written confirmation.

A person who is incarcerated or is otherwise in custody pursuant to court order may wish to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. Such a challenge would be brought as a petition for writ of habeas corpus against the person or entity who holds them in custody, e.g., state or county. If the person can successfully show that a constitutional right was violated, which would have otherwise prevented the incarceration ("fact of incarceration") or the duration of the incarceration the court will grant a writ of habeas corpus.

Unfortunately, with fees charged by lawyers commonly running in excess of $150 an hour, it may not make economic sense—or even be financially possible—for you to hire a lawyer. Even if you win and are able to collect what the other side owes you, the lawyer’s fees may devour much of your gain. As a result, representing yourself in court or dropping your claim or defense altogether may be your only realistic alternatives.


Conference: are required to explore the possibility of settlement prior to trial. At any time after an action or proceeding is at issue, any party may file a request for, or the assigned judge on his own initiative may order a settlement conference. A conference is then held before an assigned judge who facilitates the parties to come to settlement. All information provided to the settlement judge is confidential.
Also, at any time during this process from the filing of the complaint to the final judgment, the plaintiff may withdraw the complaint and end the whole matter, or the defendant may agree to a settlement. If the case settles, the parties might choose to enter into a stipulated judgment with the settlement agreement attached, or the plaintiff may simply file a voluntary dismissal, so that the settlement agreement is never entered into the court record.
...in a lawsuit involving stock trading. Sloan says he interviewed several lawyers who volunteered to represent him for free, just for the prestige of appearing before the court, but he decided to handle the job himself. “It wasn’t on an ego thing or anything like that,” he said recently. “I wanted to win the case. I was convinced I couldn’t win the case in any other way but to argue my own case...
Legal information retrieval is the science of information retrieval applied to legal text, including legislation, case law, and scholarly works.[1] Accurate legal information retrieval is important to provide access to the law to laymen and legal professionals. Its importance has increased because of the vast and quickly increasing amount of legal documents available through electronic means.[2] Legal information retrieval is a part of the growing field of legal informatics.

Utah’s Standards of Professionalism and Civility state that “Lawyers shall adhere to their express promises and agreements, oral or written” (Standard 6). Standard 13 states, “Lawyers shall not file or serve motions, pleadings or other papers at a time calculated to unfairly limit other counsel‘s opportunity to respond, or to take other unfair advantage of an opponent, or in a manner intended to take advantage of another lawyer‘s unavailability.”
The information on this site is provided "AS IS". Merrill Lynch does not warrant the accuracy of the materials provided herein, either expressly or implied, for any particular purpose and expressly disclaims any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Merrill Lynch will not be responsible for any loss or damage that could result from interception by third parties of any information made available to you via this site. Although the information provided to you on this site is obtained or compiled from sources we believe to be reliable, Merrill Lynch cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy, validity, timeliness or completeness of any information or data made available to you for any particular purpose. Neither Merrill Lynch, nor any of its affiliates, directors, officers or employees, nor any third-party vendor will be liable or have any responsibility of any kind for any loss or damage that you incur in the event of any failure or interruption of this site, or resulting from the act or omission of any other party involved in making this site or the data contained therein available to you, or from any other cause relating to your access to, inability to access, or use of the site or these materials, whether or not the circumstances giving rise to such cause may have been within the control of Merrill Lynch or of any vendor providing software or services support. In no event will Merrill Lynch, its affiliates or any such parties be liable to you for any direct, special, indirect, consequential, incidental damages or any other damages of any kind even if Merrill Lynch or any other party have been advised of the possibility thereof. 
Some courts issue orders against self representation in civil cases. A court enjoined a former attorney from suing the new lover of her former attorney.[29] The Superior Court of Bergen New Jersey also issued an order against pro se litigation based on a number of lawsuits that were dismissed and a failure to provide income tax returns in case sanctions might issue.[30] The Superior Court of New Jersey issued an order prohibiting a litigant from filing new lawsuits.[31] The Third Circuit however ruled that a restriction on pro se litigation went too far and that it could not be enforced if a litigant certified that he has new claims that were never before disposed of on the merits.[32] The 10th Circuit ruled that before imposing filing restrictions, a district court must set forth examples of abusive filings and that if the district court did not do so, the filing restrictions must be vacated.[33] The District of Columbia Court of Appeals wrote that "private individuals have 'a constitutional right of access to the courts',[34] that is, the 'right to sue and defend in the courts'."[35]
Some federal courts of appeals allow unrepresented litigants to argue orally (even so nonargument disposition is still possible), and in all courts the percentage of cases in which argument occurs is higher for counseled cases.[24] In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a rule that all persons arguing orally must be attorneys, although the Supreme Court claims it was simply codifying a "long-standing practice of the court."[25] The last non-attorney to argue orally before the Supreme Court was Sam Sloan in 1978.[25][26]
Once convicted, a prisoner no longer has the right to a public defender. Motions for post conviction relief are considered civil motions. Brandon Moon is an example of an unsuccessful pro se litigant who became successful when his case was taken by a lawyer. Moon's case was taken by the Innocence Project, and he was released after 17 years in jail for a rape that he did not commit.[50]
Utah’s Standards of Professionalism and Civility state that “Lawyers shall adhere to their express promises and agreements, oral or written” (Standard 6). Standard 13 states, “Lawyers shall not file or serve motions, pleadings or other papers at a time calculated to unfairly limit other counsel‘s opportunity to respond, or to take other unfair advantage of an opponent, or in a manner intended to take advantage of another lawyer‘s unavailability.”
Some jurisdictions, notably the United States, but prevalent in many other countries, prevent parties from relitigating the facts on appeal, due to a history of unscrupulous lawyers deliberately reserving such issues in order to ambush each other in the appellate courts (the "invited error" problem). The idea is that it is more efficient to force all parties to fully litigate all relevant issues of fact before the trial court. Thus, a party who does not raise an issue of fact at the trial court level generally cannot raise it on appeal.
×