Legal issues- representing yourself in court?

[EddieWalker]

I have no legel experience, but I was a Union Steward for 8 years. One thing that became obvious 100% of the time is when a person got into trouble, or was accused of something, they became their own worse enemy the second they opened their mouth. It's not an intelegence issue, but more of know what not to say and when to shut up. Emotions play a big part of it, but so does trying too hard.

Guilly or inocent, they all talk too much. My biggest challenge when reperesenting a union member in front of management was keeping the union member quiet. I could always get them out of trouble, but the more they talked, the harder it got for me.

If I had to go to court, I would hire somebody to represent me with experience in the matter. I know that my lack of experience in the courtroom will allow me to make mistakes and easily lose a case that was probably an easy win for a competent lawyer.

Eddie

 

[sandman2234]

The first time I went to small claim court to recoup $50 on a stopped payment check that was issued due to the neighbors dog tearing up a package delivered to us. (Belonged to the Rainbow girls)
The person I sued for damages just said the dog belonged to her roommate, and the judge thru it out. Never did get that $50 for the girls, and finally moved back to town. I rented the place to some of the lowlifes around that neighborhood and they thru parties most every weekend. The neighbors finally moved out and sold their place to a decent family.
David from jax

 

[quicksandfarmer]

Here's an experiment to try: see if you can get a lawyer to represent you as the plaintiff in a frivolous lawsuit. It's not easy. It's a serious breach of professional ethics for a lawyer to file a frivolous lawsuit and that any lawyer who does so risks disbarment. So if you are the victim of a frivolous suit the guy filing the suit is not going to be Perry Mason. He's either going to be a shyster, or he's going to have a personal involvement in the case that blinds his judgement. Most likely, this means he's the plaintiff too. He's not going into this case looking for economic compensation, the only thing the courts are half-way capable of giving. He's looking for vindication -- something the justice system is spectacularly ill-suited to deliver.

If the judge is at all on the ball, he'll figure this out pretty quick, and be generally favorable to you. But he'll also know that in a case like this the plaintiff will appeal every ruling as far as possible, and if the judge doesn't follow procedure to a T, the plaintiff will just appeal and prolong the case. So the judge will bend over backwards to make sure that the plaintiff has his day in court so there is absolutely nothing for him to hang an appeal on.

Let me give an example. A few years ago I was the defendant in a totally meritless case. In the early going, the judge dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal, and the appeals court reinstated the case. Just that appeal cost me about $5,000 -- and gained me nothing, the case continued. I would have been better off if the only time the Judge had ever ruled in my favor was the final disposition of the case.

Forget the idea of filing an action for malicious litigation. After going a few rounds with someone like this, the last thing you want to do is go back into the lion's den.

 

[browns40]

I would have to agree with getting a lawyer...

You can be on the ball, smart, etc., but the pitfall of the legal system is the procedural side of it. There is an "order to operations" the system demands be followed that only experience in going through the motions would grant someone (and I sure hope nobody ever grows familiar with going to court if they AREN'T a lawyer).

Between formality, and the specific jargon and forms judges expect to encounter, an inexperienced person can allow a very simple case to go much farther than it would with a good lawyer in the lead.

Sadly, "wasting" the money on a lawyer is probably best. It's a self-perpetuating system...

 

[firemanpat2910]

I would have to agree with getting a lawyer...


Sadly, "wasting" the money on a lawyer is probably best. It's a self-perpetuating system...

Aint that the truth

 

[YanmarFever]

When an honest man cant go before a jury & tell his side of the story about some huckster, without worrying about hidden dates, appeals and process, then I would have to say that our judicial system is in sad shape.

Im for scrapping the whole thing & starting over

 

[john_bud]

Maybe you can take him for a drive, Kennedy style? How about hunting, Chenny style?

(See I'm non-denominational !)


But seriously, most of these cases are pure PIA and very costly. My mother-inlaw was involved with a neighbor in a land case. Adverse possesion of land that the father-inlaw allowed the neighbor to encroach on. Father-inlaw passed, neighbor wanted the land in clear title to allow sale. Took 18 months and cost both sides boat loads of $$, huge dump trucks of bucks. All over about 50 sq ft of land. The neighbor "won" but it cost 200-1000x what it would have had she just said she "needed the land so she could sell the house and move. Would you please sell it to me ?"

Lawyers!


Actually, the biggest hinderance was egos of the parties envolved.

jb

 

[chh]

A man who represents himself has a fool for a client.

That's the way I always heard it and after having a bit of experience with the lawyers and courts a few years ago all I can say is hire the best one you can get. Let him do the talking and only speak when spoken to and try to may that yes and no.
As far as a common person getting thru the process unscathed, try this little legal example.
Neighbor 1 draws up a contract using all the legalese(he knew what the terms meant) out of a former contract to buy the property from neighbor 2(a retired banker who should have known better). The oral agreement was for a specific price and surface rights only, neighbor 2 to retain the minerals(which were and are making money). Neighbor 2 reads the contract and fails to notice 2 words "with appurantances"(I think is the correct phrase but probably not spelled right). Neighbor 1 now owns the property and producing minerals. Neighbor 2 doesn't know whats going on when his royalty checks stop and finds out from the gas company that his is no longer the registered owner. He now hires a lawyer to sue but it is all a he said against a he said case, the deed and contract stand as written.
This really happened on a ranch property near me. That would have been a cheap(under $100 locally) legal consultation to get that contract read and it has made neighbor 1 thousands of dollars more than the original purchase price of the property.
When in doubt consult with a lawyer.

 

[ToadHill]

Eddie: When I used to represent the company in arbitration cases I loved it when the grievant took the stand to defend his position. It was almost always a sure win for me.

 

[rimshot]

when a frivolous action is filed, the biggest mistake a defendant can make is to assume that common sense and logic will be applied to decide a case. If somebody gets hurt or injured it doesn't matter who's at fault these days. What matters is whose got the money.

Nobody will ever convince me our forefathers intended for our system to get warped in this manner but I think it has just evolved by precedent. When you hear a lawyer inform a judge, "Your honor, in the case of Joe Smith vs the Board of water and light you are about to hear his interpretation of a previous court ruling usually that fits his agenda. Then the other side argues and hopefully the Judge rules. The decision is probably going to be affected by the Judges interpretation. In the end, the judge will decide but it was based on arguments made by three lawyers who all disagreed anyway.

If you have not already figured it out, I'm no attorney but this is the oversimplified way I see the system. God bless America cause I get to say it.

I think the English have it right. File a frivolous lawsuit and lose..........you are going to pay the legal costs of your opponent. The sysstem is good but just not perfect.

rim (But still too many lawsuits in this great county)