24 ms·
Take it from one active pro se to another, lawyers (and their clients) will always perpetuate the myth that lawyers are needed to navigate the seas of law and c
by anonbanker 12y ago
Take it from one active pro se to another, lawyers (and their clients) will always perpetuate the myth that lawyers are needed to navigate the seas of law and commerce, in order to justify the money earned by/spent on them.
Canada recently did a rather robust housecleaning on pro se litigant tactics. Meads v. Meads , amongst all the humor, provides examples of how to obtain remedy as a pro se, even if you fall into one of the vexatious litigant traps they mention.
- s_q_b 12y agoFirst of all, any pro se litigant is going to see the following off the bat in civil litigation: motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motion for summary judgment, motion to change venue, motion to suppress... Even if you defeat them, it will take over your life, if the case is of any complexity at all. Now, that's not say pro se representation can't be done. But it is neither a wise choice, nor a good way to structure the system for the majority of the population.
- anonbanker 12y agoMotions to dismiss/strike are fantastic examples of legal tactics lawyers immediately throw out when they underestimate the other side's knowledge. Thankfully, the bar to strike or dismiss is extraordinarily high for the judges, so these amount to little more than a delay, and if used in excess could be grounds for an abuse of process claim. I've personally been awarded substantial court costs due to frivolous filings by state actors. The payoff at the end, where you receive an actionable judgement, is always worth the marathon. Even if you lose, the lessons learned are extraordinarily valuable in future encounters.