A self-represented Waterford man who waged a 13-year medical malpractice battle following his wife's suicide saw his case rejected by the Connecticut Supreme Court last month, following a series of expanded actions and appeals.

Sylvester Traylor, a resident of Waterford's Quaker Hill neighborhood, filed a medical negligence suit in 2006 against his wife's treating psychiatrist, Bassam Awwa, and Awwa's employer, Connecticut Behavioral Health Associates P.C.

Awwa had prescribed medication to Roberta Traylor to treat her major depressive disorder, despite warnings the medication should not be prescribed to patients with suicidal thoughts. Roberta's medication was changed, but she and her husband contacted Awwa several times to report adverse reactions. The psychiatrist reportedly did not return phone calls expressing concern, and on March 1, 2004, Roberta committed suicide.

In the end, Silvester Traylor never got the "day in court" he sought for his initial claim. And while it cannot be known if he could have prevailed with an attorney, the record suggests a lack of representation played a factor in the outcome.

Initially appearing pro se, Traylor sued Awwa and Connecticut Behavioral Associates, but did not attach a required certificate of good faith supporting medical letter for his claim. Despite this, Judge D. Michael Hurley denied a motion to dismiss his case, and Traylor eventually submitted a certificate of good faith and supporting letter.

The defendants did not comply with resulting discovery orders, claiming Roberta's medical information, including phone records, had been destroyed. With representation, Traylor amended his complaint in 2010 to include claims of spoliation and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Defendants again moved to dismiss Traylor's claim and were successful in New London Superior Court.

Traylor returned to court in 2011 as a self-represented party to appeal the decision. The Connecticut Appellate Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in December 2011, and the Connecticut Supreme Court denied an appeal of that decision in January 2012.

Traylor filed a series of actions against the original defendants, the state, "numerous current and former Superior Court judges" and the Appellate Court, among others, claiming the requirement of a good-faith certificate and supporting opinion letter under §52-190a is unconstitutional.

"Although the plaintiff fully briefed his attack on the constitutionality of § 52-190a," the high court wrote, "we cannot reach the merits of that claim because of his failure to challenge the trial court's threshold conclusions that his claims against all of the defendants are barred by, inter alia, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court."

Repeated delays throughout the legal battle included numerous motions, described as "frivolous" by one judge, which became part of the basis for a proposed bill in 2013, supported by former state Rep. Timothy Bowles. The bill essentially would have required fee waivers to be reimbursed in the event of victory, or with community service if unsuccessful. The idea was floated by former New London civil clerk's office employee Wyatt Kopp, who told the New London Day at the time that he estimated Traylor's fee waivers to have been in excess of $5,000.

In 2016, Judge Emmett L. Cosgrove wrote that Traylor "has repeatedly filed actions with respect to the same or similar matters; that these filings demonstrate an extended pattern of frivolous filings that have been without merit; that this filing is consistent with the [plaintiff's] previous pattern of frivolous filings; and that the granting of the fee waiver would constitute a flagrant misuse of judicial branch resources.''

The case underscores a problem many judges and attorneys see proliferating in courts. With more online tools available and with many people thinking they can one-up the judicial system from watching television crime dramas, the number of pro se litigants nationwide continues to increase.

And while legal experts say the best way to win a case is to have an attorney on your side, many people are not heeding that advice. It's especially prevalent in prisoner cases, as well as in family and civil cases.

In March 2018, the Chicago Tribune quoted Natalie Knowlton, director of the Institute for Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, who said 75% of litigants in family and civil cases show up to court without an attorney. A 2015 study by Jessica Steinberg of George Washington University Law School estimated the number upward of 90% of civil cases nationwide include pro se litigants.

And, according to a September 2017 report from the news website Conversation.com, in some states 80% to 90% of litigants are unrepresented, even though their opponent has an attorney. In eviction cases, especially, the website noted that going it alone is almost a guarantee of defeat.

The site states that roughly 90% of landlords are represented by counsel, while 90% of tenants aren't. When tenants, the site said, represented themselves in New York City, they are evicted in nearly 50% of the cases. With an attorney, they win 90% of the time.

According to the National Center for State Courts website, one of the most daunting challenges in the court system is the ever-increasing number of self-represented litigants. Some courts, the site notes, are responding in improving access to the system and making courts more user-friendly. That includes, the website said, simplifying court forms; offering court-sponsored legal advice; collaborating with libraries and legal services; and developing guides, handbooks, and instructions on how to proceed.

Ndidi Moses, president of the Connecticut Bar Association, told the Connecticut Law Tribune Friday, "It's crucial to help pro se people. It puts a strain on the judicial branch and it's an access-to-justice issue as you want to make sure people can articulate legal claims properly. It's also an efficiency issue as you want courts to be moving so there is not a backlog."

Moses said that, starting in October in honor of National Pro Bono week, there will be pro bono clinics sponsored by the CBA focusing on reaching out to pro se individuals through marketing efforts. "We will be going out into the community to get the word out" that free legal services are available, Moses said.

Experts the Connecticut Law Tribune spoke to this week said there is no upside to going pro se. Though judges have varying perceptions and approaches to self-representing parties, they agree having an attorney is the best way to navigate the legal system.

"The main obstacle in going pro se is like doing your own dentistry. Theoretically, it's possible but it can be very painful and the results are often not optimal," said Mark Dubois, an attorney with New London-based Geraghty & Bonnano Attorneys at Law and a professor of law at the University of Connecticut School of Law.

While money is often a factor in the decision to go pro se, it's not the only one, experts said. Access to online legal information plays a big part, as many people think they can navigate the internet for guidance or will get some helpful hints watching TV law and crime dramas.

Stanley Twardy Jr., partner with Day Pitney. Courtesy photo.

"There are definitely more pro se cases today," Dubois said. "Courts are swamped all over the country. The internet is a big part of it, as people think they can do it themselves. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Jamie Sullivan, a partner with Howard, Kohn, Sprague & FitzGerald, said, "People think they can handle claims themselves. They think by watching a couple of TV shows, the practice of law is something anyone can do when, in fact, it's a highly skilled profession that requires an education and a vast amount of experience."

The biggest hurdle a pro se litigant faces, according to Day Pitney partner Stanley Twardy Jr., is legal experience. That is something, Twardy said, that can only be gained from getting a law degree.

"The biggest hurdle is the experience in the courtroom," Twardy said Tuesday. "You need to know how to conduct yourself in the courtroom, whether through cross-examination or direct examination. And you need to know how to illicit facts from witnesses. In a courtroom, you need to be able to tell the story through the witnesses. If you are pro se, you have no experience in doing that."

Sullivan said he believes judges "often bend over backwards to pro se litigants. There are a couple of reasons for that. The judges recognize the inequality of their legal ability and, two, judges are afraid of being criticized by pro se individuals when they come up for reconfirmation."

And the Traylor lawsuit is a case in point. The Connecticut Supreme Court acknowledged in its ruling that dealing with pro se litigants requires some consideration. However, "The solicitous treatment we afford a self-represented party does not allow us to address a claim on his behalf when he has failed to brief that claim" and "In the present case, the plaintiff's complete failure to challenge what the trial court actually decided in its memoranda of decision operates as an abandonment of his claims."

Said Dubois, "The judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter calling balls and strikes. When someone comes in and does not know what base is first base, the judge can't explain it to them because they run the risk of losing that neutrality. They can't move from being an umpire to a coach."