HALT won an important victory for pro se litigants in an April 2002 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In Pickholtz v. Rainbow Technologies, the appellate court ruled that a trial court must consider using its inherent powers to award attorney fees to a pro se litigant who has been subject to abuse of the discovery process by the opposing party.
The case was an appeal of a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to deny an award of attorney fees to Andrew Pickholtz, a pro se litigant, despite attempts by his opponent to stonewall his discovery requests. An order to pay the other side's attorney fees is a common sanction in instances of misconduct, but has usually only been applied to parties represented by counsel. On appeal, HALT filed an amicus curiae or "friend of the court" brief arguing that "failing to apply full sanctions against parties who have committed discovery abuses, simply because the opposing party is not represented by counsel, perversely undermines the entire system of sanctions. If a party knows that it can commit discovery abuses against a pro se litigant with a large degree of impunity, the courts are actually fostering the kind of dilatory misconduct that occurred in this case."
The court's decision acknowledged HALT's argument, stating that the unavailability of sanctions "would place a pro se litigant at the mercy of an opponent who might engage in otherwise sanctionable conduct, but not be liable for attorney fees to a pro se party."
Commenting on HALT's work, plaintiff-appellant Andrew Pickholtz said, "I would like to thank HALT for its amicus brief. I have long considered the right to represent oneself a prerequisite for any judicial system that claims equal access. HALT is providing an important service to individual and the American judicial process as a whole."
|
