I was at a hearing today against a pro per. There was no basis for the relief they sought and the statutes they cited were inapplicable. The matter will be dismissed.
In oral argument, they came up with new statutes which I and the Court also thought were inapplicable but the Court continued it for more briefing, warning the pro per that it was just to make a complete record and that they were likely to lose. I won't discuss the details but it was the kind of law that Courts and lawyers know like the back of their hand and this person just didn't understand. It was the first time and I expect the only time that I said to a judge "I'm not sure what they're citing but I know what the law is and this Court certainly knows what the law is". The argument was slightly offensive but the judge agreed with me that it was clear but just wanted the record complete.
That's not the pet peeve. I am fine with pro pers having some trouble getting up to speed and generally fine with Courts cutting them a bit of slack even though case law says they are bound by the same standards. Courts cut lawyers slack when a lawyer is lost.
What bothered me most was the conversation outside the courtroom when the pro per, despite the judge taking at least 20 minutes to explain why the matter would be dismissed, said "I don't understand why your client is paying legal fees on this when they should just let me have what I want." I can't tell you what about this is more offensive -- the fact that the pro per not only thinks they are right but assumes I know it and am just opposing them to be difficult and unfair, or the fact that the pro per thinks that the legal fees are money that ought to go to them. Mind you, many times, my clients can't afford these matters much more than the person suing. I end up with large receivables and get paid only a portion. I'm carrying out my professional responsibility and I'm getting tired of people viewing me as a high-paid amoral person who just manipulating the system.
Posted by Justene Adamec at June 15, 2004 12:10 PM | TrackBackIt's the Newdow philosphy: I will win because I'm right.
Posted by: Xrlq at June 15, 2004 12:16 PM (Permalink)From when I was working as a Law Clerk (and usually going to court with the female attorneys when they had tenants that would send threating letters), for a firm that did mostly UDs anything that happens in a court or the things the opposing counsul (or self-represented) do doesn't suprise me anymore. (the lawyers that had it the worse had to go to court in SF, where they don't even believe in following Law)
Posted by: John at June 15, 2004 02:22 PM (Permalink)And "...if I don't win it's because the system is corrupt."
For myself, I have a generally very jaundiced view of the profession because there are sleazy lawyers and I don't think the profession's self-policing works as well as it needs to. And here in Georgia some shyster in the Legislature just cost my wife and my a pretty good chunk of money by requiring even a mere mortgage refinance to be executed in an attorney's office. We could have saved ourselves some good money if not for that requirement, which nixed the whole deal for us. Times like this I think a constitutional amendment barring attorneys from elective office (except for AG, DA, etc.) wouldn't be a bad idea.
But that being said, I also know enough about what lawyers are good for, to know that there are legitimate reasons for retaining the services of one, and for listening to what he or she tells you.
And certainly in court you gotta listen to what the judge tells you, whether you have a lawyer or not. ;-)
Posted by: McGehee at June 15, 2004 02:24 PM (Permalink)Pro pers are the Lord's way of keeping qualified people off the bench. Could you imagine having to engage in the 20 minute colloquy you describe? Then continue the matter knowing that you would dismiss them next time? While in the meantime the other side racks up fees for two hearings instead of one. 100% of pro pers have no case (either because of no liability case or damages case, or both). Otherwise, some lawyer would go for it.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at June 15, 2004 05:36 PM (Permalink)Yeah! Me too! What on earth is a pro per? It sounds like pro se (representing himself.)
IANAL
Posted by: Bruce at June 16, 2004 08:47 AM (Permalink)Interesting. When I read the pro per's statement, it sounded to me like he/she filed the lawsuit as an extortion tactic. Since I couldn't see facial expressions or hear the tone of voice (and 80% of communication is nonverbal), I could be wrong, but that's the conclusion I drew from the pro per's statement.
It's possible that the pro per is getting "help" from someone who is giving them really bad advice, and that is why they think they are right. Think of the "paralegals" who "help" people going into Bankruptcy Court.
Heavens, yes, it's annoying, but try not to take it personally -- and then move for costs upon dismissal. That usually pisses them off.
>:-)
Ok, I went and looked it up at law.com; Pro Se is the same as Pro Per and both mean "represeting one's self"
Posted by: Bruce at June 16, 2004 01:07 PM (Permalink)Pro se is Latin for "for oneself." IIRC, pro per is short for "in propria persona," or "in one's own person."
Both mean, roughly speaking, "has a fool for a client."
Posted by: Xrlq at June 16, 2004 06:04 PM (Permalink)Not necessarily.
The crazy lawyer who's willing to go pro per and file low-value suits has a very effective extortion tactic- it's cheaper to pay him to go away than it is to even respond to the legal proceedings.
Posted by: The Angry Clam at June 16, 2004 06:47 PM (Permalink)Yeah, but in my experience the object of the extortion is so ticked off they would rather lose money fighting the case... and, as you've noted, its quite easy to do with an pro per plaintiff.
Step 1: Propound interrogatories, request for admissions, and document demands.
Step 2: Serve letter demanding production when discovery isn't provided.
Step 3: File a motion compelling production.
Step 4: When order compelling production is ignored, file Motion for terminating sanctions
Works every time.
Posted by: Sean at June 16, 2004 07:53 PM (Permalink)thank you.
If you ever need explanations of advertising terminology, I'm you're girl.
Posted by: irishlass at June 16, 2004 09:50 PM (Permalink)sports book betting football football gambling sports pick and sports gambling football betting odds online basketball gambling soccer gambling sports gambling statistics soccer sports betting vegas sports betting college football gambling spread pro football betting odds international sports betting online college football betting sports betting on line online nfl football gambling college basketball betting line baseball betting site atlantic city sports gambling football gambling ncaa online tip bill buffalo football gambling online sports betting forum college basketball gambling european football betting ncaa football betting online online gambling college basketball soccer sports betting football gambling guide online.com betting football jet new york betting football ncaa tip football betting rule sports betting football ncaa basketball betting college sports betting football gambling information college football gambling online tip basketball betting odds sports betting football gambling sports betting odds sports betting review college football gambling online ncaa football gambling online soccer gambling line basketball sports betting betting football las vegas basketball betting soccer betting tip college football gambling news sports gambling casino
Posted by: Pete at November 11, 2004 08:42 PM (Permalink)You can also check some information about insurance quotes insurance quotes http://insurance-quotes.rulo.biz/ poker poker http://poker.rulo.biz/ debt consolidation loans debt consolidation loans http://debt-consolidation-loans.rulo.biz/ bad credit auto loans bad credit auto loans http://bad-credit-auto-loans.rulo.biz/ countrywide home loans countrywide home loans http://countrywide-home-loans.rulo.biz/ unsecured loans unsecured loans http://unsecured-loans.rulo.biz/ homeowners insurance homeowners insurance http://homeowners-insurance.rulo.biz/ canadian pharmacy canadian pharmacy http://canadian-pharmacy.rulo.biz/ online pharmacies online pharmacies http://online-pharmacies.rulo.biz/ canadian pharmacies canadian pharmacies http://canadian-pharmacies.rulo.biz/ reductil reductil http://reductil.rulo.biz/ butalbital butalbital http://butalbital.rulo.biz/ propecia propecia http://propecia.rulo.biz/ clonazepam clonazepam http://clonazepam.rulo.biz/ fluoxetine fluoxetine http://www.rulo.biz/ wellbutrin wellbutrin http://wellbutrin.rulo.biz/ slots slots http://slots.rulo.biz/ black jack black jack http://black-jack.rulo.biz/ craps craps http://craps.rulo.biz/ roulette roulette http://roulette.rulo.biz/ ...
Posted by: insurance quotes at January 22, 2005 09:31 AM (Permalink)