We are of the opinion that Ricci has faded to demonstrate that his repeated absences from and late appearances at court hearings were not the result of gross neglect. In fact, he concedes that he was not always present *996for court dates and that on occasion he was late for scheduled hearings. (Indeed, we would be remiss if we failed to note that Ricci also showed up late on the date he argued his appeal to this court). As noted previously, Ricci also failed to order a transcript of the hearing that led to the rulings which form the basis for his appeal. Without providing us with a sufficient record to review, it is impossible for us to ascertain whether the trial justice abused his discretion. As the appellant, Ricci had the burden of providing this court with the transcript to review the trial justice’s discretionary decision. “Even if a litigant is acting pro se, he or she is expected to familiarize himself or herself with the law as well as the rules of procedure.” Faerber v. Cavanagh, 568 A.2d 326, 330 (R.I.1990).