The Corporate Pro Se Litigant

Suneal Bedi
{"title":"The Corporate Pro Se Litigant","authors":"Suneal Bedi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3550886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Corporations, partnerships, and all other business organizations cannot appear pro se in either criminal or civil proceedings. Business organizations must use a hired lawyer to defend lawsuits. This arbitrary and outdated rule has not been revisited in over 150 years. This Article is the first to lay out in detail the current state of corporate pro se rights. It then debunks the current rationales offered for the prohibition on corporate self-representation. Finally, it offers a novel argument that business organizations should be given a constitutional pro se right to litigate their own cases. \n \nIn doing this, it draws upon the importance of the individual constitutional due process rights that exist to protect against government deprivations of life and liberty. Individuals in the corporate context are equally at stake of deprivations of life and liberty given corporate lawsuits. These deprivations are particularly salient for non-executive employees. As such, this Article argues that if we really care about the individual pro se right, we should grant corporations a similar due process right.","PeriodicalId":309706,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Governance Law & Arrangements by Subject Matter (Topic)","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Governance Law & Arrangements by Subject Matter (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3550886","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Corporations, partnerships, and all other business organizations cannot appear pro se in either criminal or civil proceedings. Business organizations must use a hired lawyer to defend lawsuits. This arbitrary and outdated rule has not been revisited in over 150 years. This Article is the first to lay out in detail the current state of corporate pro se rights. It then debunks the current rationales offered for the prohibition on corporate self-representation. Finally, it offers a novel argument that business organizations should be given a constitutional pro se right to litigate their own cases. In doing this, it draws upon the importance of the individual constitutional due process rights that exist to protect against government deprivations of life and liberty. Individuals in the corporate context are equally at stake of deprivations of life and liberty given corporate lawsuits. These deprivations are particularly salient for non-executive employees. As such, this Article argues that if we really care about the individual pro se right, we should grant corporations a similar due process right.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公司诉讼当事人
公司、合伙企业和所有其他商业组织都不能在刑事或民事诉讼中出现。商业组织必须聘请律师为诉讼辩护。这一武断和过时的规则在150多年里没有被重新审视过。本文首先详细论述了我国企业法人权益的现状。然后,它揭穿了目前为禁止公司自我代表提供的理由。最后,它提出了一个新颖的论点,即商业组织应该被赋予宪法上的诉讼权利。在这样做时,它利用了个人宪法正当程序权利的重要性,这些权利是为了防止政府剥夺生命和自由而存在的。公司背景下的个人在公司诉讼中同样面临着剥夺生命和自由的危险。这些剥夺对非执行员工来说尤其突出。因此,本文认为,如果我们真的关心个人的诉讼权利,我们应该赋予公司类似的正当程序权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Are M&A Lawyers Really Better? Hidden Agendas in Shareholder Voting A Right For Retirement: Unconscionable Contracts, The Right (Not) to Associate, and Citizens United Will Nasdaq's Diversity Rules Harm Investors? A Trans-Atlantic Doctrinal Orientation Made Concrete: Ohio’s First 'Modern' Business Corporation Act (1927)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1