By Linda Dumont, Esq.

Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney

Providence, RI

 

I. Introduction

In the Rhode Island Workers’ Compensation Court—as in many states—an increasing number of injured workers appear before the bench without legal representation. The prevalence of self-represented (pro se) litigants presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the judiciary. Workers’ compensation was designed to provide a streamlined, accessible path to recovery for injured employees, yet for many claimants, the process is far from intuitive.

Judges find themselves walking a tightrope: upholding impartiality while ensuring that claimants who lack legal training are not unfairly prejudiced. This article explores how judges can and do strike that balance—particularly in Rhode Island—while drawing lessons from other jurisdictions and broader national practices. The goal is to articulate practical strategies and ethical considerations for judges navigating the unique procedural and human complexities of pro se litigation in workers’ compensation.

II. The Rise of Pro Se Litigants in Workers’ Compensation

While the right to self-representation is firmly rooted in American jurisprudence, its practical implications in specialized courts such as workers’ compensation require careful scrutiny. Unlike civil or criminal courts, workers’ compensation tribunals often operate under different rules of evidence and procedure—sometimes applying relaxed standards—which can create an appearance of informality. That appearance may mislead litigants into believing the process is simpler than it truly is.

In Rhode Island, a growing percentage of claimants initiate or defend petitions pro se, particularly in cases involving minor injuries, denials of temporary disability, or disputes over medical authorizations. Economic constraints, dissatisfaction with available counsel, and the perception that the system is navigable without legal training all contribute to this trend.

But despite the informal tone of many hearings, the underlying legal complexity remains, especially at the trial stage. Some litigants, dissatisfied with how their counsel is handling pretrial matters, dismiss their attorneys before reaching trial—a stage that is difficult to navigate even with legal training, let alone without it as a layperson. At trial, litigants must present medical evidence, respond to procedural orders, and evaluate the long-term implications of settlements—all of which may be unfamiliar territory for someone without a legal background.

III. Judicial Challenges in Pro Se Context

Presiding over a case involving a pro se litigant demands more than legal expertise—it calls for patience, clear communication, and careful ethical navigation. Judges must simultaneously protect due process, ensure procedural compliance, and avoid the appearance of advocacy.

From my observations as a law clerk at the Rhode Island Workers’ Compensation Court, presiding over trials and hearing arguments presented by pro se litigants is particularly challenging. Not challenging in the sense that a judge must go beyond what is judicially appropriate, but rather on the mental and emotional level. Many judges I have spoken with stated that, when they first entered the bench, they were advised to balance sympathy and empathy with strict adherence to the law—to “not remove the human from the law,” but at the same time to always follow it. In a way, this advice is inherently contradictory, as the law does not deal in emotions.

Many judges are former plaintiffs’ attorneys who practiced for years advocating for injured employees, and it can be difficult for them to sit back and watch a pro se litigant struggle. Thus, they must know when to step in—especially if opposing counsel appears to be taking advantage of an unrepresented party—and when to step back. Judges in the Workers’ Compensation Court are permitted to ask clarifying questions, but if they ask too many, it may appear that they are helping one side. On the other hand, if a judge asks no clarifying questions, there is a risk of an unjust outcome simply because a litigant did not understand what was required.

Judges are not obligated to “level the playing field,” but they are required to ensure fairness. However, the question remains: is it fair to treat a pro se litigant as if they were an attorney? Some judges would say yes, if they choose to continue unrepresented, then it is fair to treat them equally. One judge even pointed to a Rhode Island Supreme Court case that states “[a litigant] has the right to be represented by counsel or not as he chooses, and undoubtedly, he may dismiss his counsel. But if he does so while the trial is proceeding, it is at his own peril.” State v. Lee, 78 R.I. 46, 48, 78 A.2d 793, 794 (R.I. 1951). Other judges would say no, you need to explain things more to them and at least walk them through the procedural requirements. In practice, that often means asking questions to clarify a record, offering explanations of procedure in plain language, and being flexible with minor procedural errors—while still preserving the integrity of the adversarial process.

Opposing counsel also face ethical dilemmas in these cases. Some attorneys adopt a cooperative posture, while others worry that judicial latitude toward pro se litigants might disadvantage their client. Judges must manage this dynamic carefully, sometimes mediating tensions between what feels fair and what the law demands.

IV. A Comparative Glimpse: National Practices

Other jurisdictions have developed innovative approaches to supporting pro se litigants in workers’ compensation proceedings, without crossing judicial ethical boundaries. These models provide important points of comparison for Rhode Island, where no formal infrastructure currently exists beyond judicial discretion and limited clerk assistance.

In New York, the Workers’ Compensation Board has invested in robust educational resources. The Board hosts recorded webinars, such as Workers’ Comp 1010 with the Advocate for Injured Workers and Workers’ Comp 202 – Best Practices to Access Benefits for Workers, which walks injured workers and attorneys, through benefit access and procedural expectations. See N.Y. Workers’ Compensation Bd., Recorded Webinars (2025), available at https://www.wcb.ny.gov/webinars/recorded-webinars.jsp. Additionally, the Board also publishes video tutorials on how to participate in virtual hearings, ensuring that unrepresented claimants understand how to appear remotely and present their cases effectively. N.Y. Workers’ Compensation Bd., Virtual Hearings (2025), available at https://www.wcb.ny.gov/virtual-hearings/. These resources extend judicial accessibility outside the courtroom, providing pro se litigants with tools to prepare in advance.

California offers another model through its network of Information & Assistance Officers (I&A Officers), who provide neutral procedural guidance to unrepresented claimants. Cal. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, Information & Assistance Unit (2025), available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/IandA.htm. The I&A Officers have been given jurisdiction to assist workers’ compensation litigants through the California Legislators. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 9927. I&A officers assist workers in the workers’ compensation system to understand how to fill out required forms, deadlines, and settlement agreements, and they often contact claimants directly to ensure they understand the ramifications of compromise and release documents before judicial approval. Importantly, their mandate is strictly limited to providing information—not legal advice—thereby respecting the adversarial structure of the system while improving fairness.

Tennessee and Virginia have adopted a similar framework with the use of ombudsman programs. In Tennessee, ombudsmen are available by phone or in person to explain procedural requirements, burdens of proof, and evidentiary expectations. See Robert Wilson, On Their Own: Self-Represented Injured Workers (Apr. 10, 2024), available at https://workcompcollege.com/on-their-own-self-represented-injured-workers/.

Rhode Island has not formally adopted similar support structures, leaving much of the burden on judges and clerks. However, the state’s compact bench and high-touch courtroom style give judges a unique ability to observe patterns and adapt their approach to each litigant. Interviewed judges described informal adaptations—such as explaining what to expect before the hearing begins—that have helped mitigate misunderstandings.

Despite these efforts, structural change may be warranted. A dedicated pro se liaison or informational portal could help bridge the gap between judicial restraint and litigant support, particularly for individuals with language barriers, disabilities, or low literacy.

V. Ethical and Due Process Considerations

The presence of pro se litigants challenges the judicial branch to remain neutral while ensuring that each party receives a fair opportunity to present their case. This tension is particularly acute in workers’ compensation courts, where the judge is not only the fact-finder but also the gatekeeper of the process.

Under the Rhode Island Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are required to “perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently” (Canon 2) and to “uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially” (Canon 3). While these canons do not prohibit judges from offering clarifications or using plain language, they caution against any conduct that could be perceived as favoring one party.

However, ethical guidance from both Rhode Island and the American Bar Association (ABA) increasingly recognizes that equitable access to justice may require active engagement with pro

se parties. In ABA Formal Opinion 478, for instance, the Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility noted that a judge’s obligation to ensure a fair hearing may justify certain “non-prejudicial accommodations,” such as explaining legal terms or summarizing procedural requirements. See ABA Model Rule 2.2.

VI. Strategies and Best Practices

Given these constraints, many judges develop individualized strategies to maintain neutrality while making their courtrooms more accessible to pro se litigants. Through interviews with Rhode Island judges and national review, several themes emerged as best practices:

1. Use of Plain Language

Judges can and often do rephrase legal terminology into plain English during hearings. Instead of saying, “You must establish causation,” they may ask, “Can you explain how the injury happened and how it’s connected to your job?” This approach preserves neutrality while ensuring the record is clear and comprehensible.

2. Procedural Flexibility Where Appropriate

Many judges apply “practical justice” when it comes to procedural deadlines, especially for non-substantive issues. Allowing an extra week to file medical records or granting continuances when a pro se litigant misunderstands filing requirements can prevent unnecessary dismissals while still respecting the opposing party’s rights.

3. Pre-Hearing Orientation

Some judges offer a short, scripted explanation at the beginning of a hearing day that outlines the structure of the hearing, what evidence is, and how testimony works. This helps all litigants—represented or not—better understand the expectations.

As one judge explained, “It’s like laying the rules of the game before the first whistle. Everyone listens, and no one feels singled out.”

4. Encouraging Use of Mediation or Informal Resolution

Rhode Island allows for informal resolution or pretrial mediation in many workers’ compensation disputes. The Rhode Island Workers’ Compensation Court has even developed a free court-run mediation program that is available to all litigants under the jurisdiction of the court. Judges often suggest that pro se parties consider mediation, particularly in cases where settlement might be appropriate, but the claimant lacks the legal framework to negotiate effectively.

5. Enhancing the Record Without Overreaching

Some judges will ask clarifying questions to elicit necessary testimony, especially when it appears the pro se litigant has relevant information but is struggling to frame it properly. This not only ensures a more complete record for appellate review but also helps surface the facts necessary for a fair decision.

6. Judicial Self-Training and Peer Discussion

Given the absence of formal guidelines, many judges develop their approach through experience and dialogue with colleagues. Peer learning and training sessions—especially those focused on judicial ethics and procedural fairness—have been cited as essential tools for navigating this terrain.

VII. Conclusion

The rise of pro se litigants in Rhode Island’s Workers’ Compensation Court challenges judges to balance impartiality with the need to ensure fair proceedings. While the system is designed to be accessible, its procedural demands often overwhelm unrepresented claimants. Judges must carefully navigate their role—remaining neutral while using plain language, offering limited procedural guidance, and ensuring a complete and fair record.

Though informal strategies have helped, broader structural support is lacking. National models—such as informational officers, pre-hearing education, and online resources—demonstrate that courts can enhance access without compromising judicial ethics. As the number of pro se claimants grows, Rhode Island has an opportunity to lead in building a more responsive and equitable approach.

Ensuring justice in these cases requires more than neutrality—it requires intentional, thoughtful engagement from the bench and beyond.