At this website, one Appellate Court Justice actually argued that a pro se litigant won because he had an unfair advantage! On this website, which is run by lawyers, that is viewed at as a negative - but successful pro se litigants know this is a positive! It chips credibility away from the argument that pro se litigation is a choice not in the best interest of the litigant - it may be the best option in some cases!
Click to read!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I agree with the dissent in this case. As someone who has gone pro-se and who agrees the Court should be understanding as far as correct "styling" in some cases, or format, etc, to allow a pro-se defendant (or litigant) to functionally not participate in the lawsuits procedural aspects and then to accept his testimony at trial (which is dubious at best), leaves any other plaintiff in an impossible position.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, everything this pro-se litigant did, could be applied, then, in the same logic to a case where TWO pro-se litigants have a dispute.
Having said that, my experience and that of my (current) wife, against her Ex, who had an attorney, showed us the complete FLIPSIDE of this situation, whereby his attorney failed to abide by the Maryland Rules and was not held to account even as an evidentiary matter (nevermind as a member of the bar). We realized that if you are pro-se AGAINST someone with an attorney, the judge isn't going to allow you to make them look foolish, even if they did it to themselves.
In our recent case, his attorney (my wife being pro-se) failed to respond to the complaint--we filed a default, to which at a later conference, she basically said "I didn't realize we didn't file an answer"...in discovery, she quoted VIRGINIA LAW in her preface as the binding rules for our response...it was one thing after another.
So it depends on the court, that day, with THAT judge, in my view.