For the lawyers: pro se question

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,431
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
So - lets say I have to go to court to defend myself for something, lets say its libel. I choose to represent myself. I know that I have to file an Appearance form with the court clerk, and i know that most lawyers suggest not doing it. Let's ignore that for now.

When it comes time to give my testimony, do I have to follow the same rules as a normal witness, specifically, do I have to worry about the plaintiff's lawyer objecting to things I say, and more specifically, do I have to worry about having certain statements removed from official record?

Back to the original objection to pro se, what makes pro se such a bad idea?
 
1. In presenting your case, examining witnesses, and presenting testimony, you will be held to the same rules of procedure, evidence and courtroom decorum as any lawyer would be. So, yes, you should definitely expect that the opposing counsel will avail him or herslef of every possible opportunity to lodge objections to evidence, testimony and questions posed by you.

2. Being pro se in a court of record (basically, in any court above the level of a Justice of the Peace Court) is stepping into an arena of battle without any weapons. Not to say it cannot be done, but the odds profoundly oppose you. I would analogize it to a layperson climbing into a plane and flying it, successfully, through challenging airspace and weather. It can be done, but you sure wouldn't want to bet on it!
 
While not disagreeing, and only sorta playing devil's advocate, I'm trying to figure out what I'll do....

There must be more to this than "working without weapons" as even lawyers themselves never act pro se.

Pro se cannot be the optimum choice, but for someone in a civil case that cannot afford a lawyer, without any lawyers willing to work pro bono or pro cheapo, pro se has to be a plausible choice, no?
 
I think the problem is the fact that the other guys more than likely DO have lawyers, and they'll eat you for lunch.
 
A judge I clerked for once said:

Anyone who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Spend the money now or you may spend it later. Especially libel.

I don't think the Kids in the Hall defense will work. Just sayin'.

good luck.
 
SkyHog said:
While not disagreeing, and only sorta playing devil's advocate, I'm trying to figure out what I'll do....

There must be more to this than "working without weapons" as even lawyers themselves never act pro se.

Pro se cannot be the optimum choice, but for someone in a civil case that cannot afford a lawyer, without any lawyers willing to work pro bono or pro cheapo, pro se has to be a plausible choice, no?
Click to expand...

The other aspect is that you're emotionally invested in your own case. Emotion and logic don't mix together. That's one big reason to have a lawyer (assuming you can find one who is capable of not getting emotionally involved in the case him/herself...can be hard to do).

I would not recommend going pro se if there is any significant amount of money involved. You'll end up: 1) looking like an idiot; and 2) losing.

Depending on what's involved here, if you win you might be able to get attorney fees. That means if it's a good case, you'll be able to find a lawyer (assuming the other side has any money).
 
SkyHog said:
Pro se cannot be the optimum choice, but for someone in a civil case that cannot afford a lawyer, without any lawyers willing to work pro bono or pro cheapo, pro se has to be a plausible choice, no?
Click to expand...

Choice, yes. Plausible, no. Best not to get in situations that require a lawyer in the first place.
 
Law is full of subtleties that are hard to figure out -- even lawyers do not agree on them, which is why there are civil judges in the first place. Whoever coined the phrase "the devil is in the details" was thinking about law.

To some extent you have to game the system, and in order to game it you have to know it. I agree that representing yourself is a false economy. Pennywise and pound foolish.
 
The law is like playing an instrument. No matter how much you know or how good you are there is someone always better. In this matter there will be a lot of people better for you, they have the time to look up the details of the case and will form their argument to win for their client. You will not. Going into court per se is foolish unless it is small claims and the other party is also per se.
 
Nick, you might be better off convincing us of your case and setting up a Paypal account to accept donations towards an atty of your choice!
Either way, good luck - I don't envy you.
 
I recently took a landlord to court. The stakes were small so I did it pro se. During one line of questioning, either the landlord was extremely stupid or did a dang good job of acting like it. Considering he had claimed to build numerous homes over the last fifteen years and managed many more as rentals, I'm betting the latter.

It seemed like my adversary was more the judge than the landlord. No matter how simple I made the question, he couldn't answer (or wouldn't to avoid an admission). The judge cut me off on at least half of my questions.

The funny thing is... my current landlord had helped me with a great deal of information and some tips on how to proceed as he had been before the same judge several times for his own business dealings. He warned me she was not the most reasonable judge. Gosh, was he ever right on that one.

Were the stakes more than a couple grand, I would have certainly used a lawyer. More often than not, the purpose of the lawyer is not to exclusively win but to minimize the damage. If what is at stake in your matter is a huge amount, that should be the second consideration. If you lose while acting pro se, you're likely to lose badly. A lawyer can reduce the loss if not win the case with no loss at all.
 
Are we to assume RSA has finally come a-knocking? If this is true, best to find the best damned lawyer you can since the last award RSA received was $14MIL (NOT OF WHICH WILL GO TO ANY OF THE ARTISTS INVOLVED!!!!!). And RSA is doing this for all altruistic reasons for sure.
 
silver-eagle said:
Are we to assume RSA has finally come a-knocking? If this is true, best to find the best damned lawyer you can since the last award RSA received was $14MIL (NOT OF WHICH WILL GO TO ANY OF THE ARTISTS INVOLVED!!!!!). And RSA is doing this for all altruistic reasons for sure.
Click to expand...

RSA or RIAA?

I don't think this is what Nick may be referring to. he is talking about defending himself in a libel suit. The record guys would not be taking him to court of libel but in a copyright violation suit.
 
smigaldi said:
RSA or RIAA?

I don't think this is what Nick may be referring to. he is talking about defending himself in a libel suit. The record guys would not be taking him to court of libel but in a copyright violation suit.
Click to expand...
It's defense for libel??? Ouch. Nick, who did you tick off?

I've not seen a libel accusation but a courier company did threaten to come after me for approaching a customer of theirs. I told them that was fine but be prepared to disclose billing records and commission reports to drivers. During the time there, I discovered they were "skimming" off the billed amount before paying commission; contrary to what was represented in the driver contracts. Perhaps libel may have come in if this were not true and could be proved by their own records.
 
My apologies, guys, I mistakenly used the word "will" in lieu of the word "would." This all hypothetical.
 
smigaldi said:
RSA or RIAA?

I don't think this is what Nick may be referring to. he is talking about defending himself in a libel suit. The record guys would not be taking him to court of libel but in a copyright violation suit.
Click to expand...
Sorry.... RIAA was what I was thinking. RSA is what is on my securecard. My apologies to RSA. RIAA has just found another revenue stream.
 
I am not an attorney, but I fear that in defending a libel action, even a lawyer acting as his/her own counsel would be more likely to prove plaintiff's case through excited utterances in court than demonstrate its flaws.

My reading of press reports and the like suggests that most libel cases against private persons (i.e., not press reporters or other journalists) involve unwise statements made in the heat of emotional conflict, and often constitute actionable offenses which would not have been committed under cooler circumstances. Getting up on your own hind legs in front of judge, jury, and opposing counsel (who is trained to, and will, do his/her level best to get you to blow your cool in court) is most unwise -- better to leave that to more dispassionate professional representation.

And if you really can't afford counsel, it's unlikely you have enough assets that any plaintiff's attorney will want to carry the case very far. If you do have enough assets to whet an attorney's palate, you have enough to buy proper representation (even if it hurts a little).

BTW, the odds of collecting against the plaintiff even if the case is dismissed are quite slim. Only if you can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the case brought against you was frivilous, knowingly false, or malicious can you expect to countersue successfully.
 
Ron Levy said:
...

And if you really can't afford counsel, it's unlikely you have enough assets that any plaintiff's attorney will want to carry the case very far. If you do have enough assets to whet an attorney's palate, you have enough to buy proper representation (even if it hurts a little).

...
Click to expand...


Truer words, never spake.
 
I have hoid that, I have.
 
silver-eagle said:
Sorry.... RIAA was what I was thinking. RSA is what is on my securecard. My apologies to RSA. RIAA has just found another revenue stream.
Click to expand...
Whew! I work for RSA and I was trying to figure out why the heck we would want to sue anyone for libel.

Any chance the EFF would help out in such a case? If the libel case were seen as another method by which RIAA uses legal proceedings to a common end, they might be interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top