The Law of Self-Representation

Stephen Morris
May 8
5 min read

Updated: May 11

RULES FOR SELF-REPRESENTATIVES, AMICUS CURIAE AND LAWYERS

RULES FOR AMICUS CURIAE:

(From Hull & Hull LLP)

https://hullandhull.com/2024/06/amicus-curiae/#:~:text=Amicus%20Curiae%20*%20Courts%20may%20appoint%20amicus,or%20who's%20lack%20of%20sophistication%20risks%20injustice.

Case Law drawn from:

Ontario v Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC 43 (“CLA”)

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc43/2013scc43.html

RULES FOR SELF-REPRESENTATIVES AND LAWYERS:

From the Complete Rules of Professional Conduct

https://lso.ca/about-lso/legislation-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct/complete-rules-of-professional-conduct

Encouraging Compromise or Settlement

3.2-4 A lawyer shall advise and encourage the client to compromise or settle a dispute whenever it is possible to do so on a reasonable basis and shall discourage the client from commencing or continuing useless legal proceedings.

[1.2] When the complainant or potential complainant is unrepresented, the lawyer should have regard to the rules respecting unrepresented persons and make it clear that the lawyer is acting exclusively in the interests of the accused. If the complainant or potential complainant is vulnerable, the lawyer should take care not to take unfair or improper advantage of the circumstances. When communicating with an unrepresented complainant or potential complainant, it is prudent to have a witness present.

Threatening Penal or Regulatory Proceedings

3.2-5 A lawyer shall not, in an attempt to gain a benefit for a client, threaten, or advise a client to threaten, without reasonable and lawful justification:

(a) to initiate or proceed with a charge for an offence, including an offence under

(i) the Criminal Code or any other statute of Canada;

(ii) a statute of a province or territory of Canada; or

(iii) a municipal by-law; or

(b) to make a complaint to a regulatory authority.

[2] It is not improper, however, to notify the appropriate authority of conduct that may attract penal or regulatory consequences while also taking steps through the civil system. Nor is it improper for a lawyer to request that another lawyer comply with an undertaking or trust condition or other professional obligation or face being reported to the Law Society. The impropriety stems from threatening to use penal or regulatory proceedings for unintended purposes.

[3] A complaint to a regulatory authority is justified if it is reasonable and lawful, for example when a regulatory process is intended to provide redress or a remedy to individuals for the matter complained of.

SECTION 5.1 THE LAWYER AS ADVOCATE

Advocacy

5.1-1 When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law while treating the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect.

[1] Role in Adversarial Proceedings - In adversarial proceedings, the lawyer has a duty to the client to raise fearlessly every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, that the lawyer thinks will help the client's case and to endeavour to obtain for the client the benefit of every remedy and defence authorized by law. The lawyer must discharge this duty by fair and honourable means, without illegality and in a manner that is consistent with the lawyer's duty to treat the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy and respect and in a way that promotes the parties' right to a fair hearing in which justice can be done. Maintaining dignity, decorum and courtesy in the courtroom is not an empty formality because, unless order is maintained, rights cannot be protected.

Incriminating Physical Evidence

5.1-2A A lawyer shall not counsel or participate in the concealment, destruction or alteration of incriminating physical evidence or otherwise act so as to obstruct or attempt to obstruct the course of justice.

Agreement on Guilty Plea

5.1-7 Before a charge is laid or at any time after a charge is laid, a lawyer for an accused or potential accused may discuss with the prosecutor the possible disposition of the case, unless the client instructs otherwise.

5.1-8 A lawyer for an accused or potential accused may enter into an agreement with the prosecutor about a guilty plea if, following investigation,

(a) the lawyer advises the client about the prospects for an acquittal or finding of guilt;

(b) the lawyer advises the client of the implications and possible consequences of a guilty plea and particularly of the sentencing authority and discretion of the court, including the fact that the court is not bound by any agreement about a guilty plea;

(d) the client voluntarily instructs the lawyer to enter into an agreement as to a guilty plea.

SECTION 5.3 INTERVIEWING WITNESSES

Interviewing Witnesses

5.3-1 Subject to the rules on communication with a represented party set out in rules 7.2-4 to 7.2-8.2, a lawyer may seek information from any potential witness, whether under subpoena or not, but the lawyer shall disclose the lawyer's interest and take care not to subvert or suppress any evidence or procure the witness to stay out of the way.

SECTION 5.6 THE LAWYER AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Encouraging Respect for the Administration of Justice

5.6-1 A lawyer shall encourage public respect for and try to improve the administration of justice.

Encouraging Client to Report Dishonest Conduct

7.1-4 In addition to other advice appropriate in the circumstances, a lawyer shall encourage a client who has a claim or complaint against an apparently dishonest licensee to report the facts to the Law Society as soon as reasonably practicable.

[No one has told me I'm dishonest]

7.2-2 A lawyer shall avoid sharp practice and shall not take advantage of or act without fair warning upon slips, irregularities, or mistakes on the part of other legal practitioners not going to the merits or involving the sacrifice of a client's rights.

Inadvertent Communications

7.2-10 A lawyer who receives a document relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows or reasonably ought to know that the document was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender.

SECTION 7.8 ERRORS AND OMISSIONS

Informing Client of Error or Omission

7.8-1 When, in connection with a matter for which a lawyer is responsible, the lawyer discovers an error or omission that is or may be damaging to the client and that cannot be rectified readily, the lawyer shall

(a) promptly inform the client of the error or omission being careful not to prejudice any rights of indemnity that either of them may have under an insurance, client's protection or indemnity plan, or otherwise;

(b) recommend that the client obtain legal advice from an independent lawyer concerning any rights the client may have arising from the error or omission; and

[What's ,y error or omission to myself?]

Notice of Claim

7.8-2 A lawyer shall give prompt notice of any circumstance that may give rise to a claim to an insurer or other indemnitor so that the client's protection from that source will not be prejudiced.

Comments

The AI Argument: A Self-Rep’s Guide to Forcing Legal Respect

The AI Argument: A Self-Rep’s Guide to Forcing Legal Respect

​

The Scenario: You present a brilliant legal argument.

The Crown scoffs because you used AI to help find it.

They claim it’s "unreliable" or "artificial."

The Truth: They are using a "Form" argument to defeat a "Substance" reality.

Here is how you hold the line.

​

1. The Logic is Yours, Even if the Tool is New

A law degree is a credential, not a monopoly on logic.

If an AI helps you find a needle in a haystack, that needle is still sharp.

​

The Crown cannot dismiss a valid Charter argument just because of the "search engine" used.

​

The Counter-Punch: "Does the Crown dispute the validity of the cases cited, or are they simply uncomfortable with the efficiency of my research?"

​

2. Substance Over Form: The 2026 Mandate

The ancient maxim Breve judiciale non cadit pro defectu formae is your shield.

A legal submission does not fail because of a "defect of form"—like the use of AI.

If the substance of your reasoning is sound, the court is duty-bound to hear it.

​

The Strategy: Always verify your citations on CanLII.

Once the case is verified, it is no longer "AI-generated"—it is a Judicial Fact.

​

3. The "Human-in-the-Loop" Certification

To win, you must prove you are the pilot, not the passenger.

Include a Verification Statement in every filing to pre-empt the Crown’s "hallucination" attack.

​

"I certify that I have manually verified every authority in this document against official court records. I am the author of this reasoning; the AI was merely my librarian."

​

This moves the conversation from "scary technology" to "verified competence."

​

4. Leveraging Pintea v. Johns (2017)

The Supreme Court has already commanded that judges and Crown counsel must assist you.

They must ensure you can "meaningfully present your case."

​

If they ignore your research because it’s "too modern," they are obstructing your right to a fair hearing.

The Move: Remind the court that Pintea requires "accommodation" of the unique challenges faced by self-reps.

Access to advanced technology is part of that accommodation in the 21st century.

​

5. Don't Let Them Call You "Uninsured"

The Crown might treat you as a "risk" because you lack professional liability insurance.

​

The Rebuttal: "My standing in this court is constitutional, not commercial."

"I do not need an insurance policy to speak the truth about the Charter."

Your independence is your strength—use it to speak "resolutely and honourably."

​

The Bottom Line for the Self-Rep:

AI isn't a shortcut; it's an equalizer.

​

It gives you the "research capacity" of a big firm on a "zero-dollar" budget.

When the Crown tries to shame you for using it, they are admitting they can't beat your logic.

Verify the law. Stand your ground. Make them argue the merits.