Lets say a case reaches the Supreme Court of the United States and one the parties decides to argue his case himself instead having his lawyer do that. Would he actually be allowed to due so is is it compulsory to use a lawyer?
Attorneys arguing before the Supreme Court have to be accredited to do so. A layman in front of the Supreme Court would be disastrous. Especially since if your case made it there, you’d have 20 different firms throwing themselves at you to argue the case.
Why? I understand that procedure must be followed, but it does not follow that accreditation guarantees those procedures will be followed.
How far can a determinedly pro se litigant go? State circuit courts? Federal circuit courts?
Yes. The guy who invented intermitant wipers for cars had his patents stolen by the automakers. He fought them all the way to SCOTUS, and was forced to act as his own attorney by that time as he’d run out of money. He won, but the judgement awarded him was less than his legal expenses.
Yes, the rules of the Supreme Court (PDF!) specifically mention proceeding “pro se.” For example, Rule 39, regarding proceeding in forma pauperis makes mention of *pro se * litigants.
I realize that this is in GQ, but it seems to me that if a “layperson” were to be barred from the Supreme Court, it would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Our country wasn’t founded just to pad the pockets of lawyers.
Proceeding pro se is not something automatically allowed in a courtroom anywhere in this great country of ours. You usually need the permission of the court to do so. Often, there are rules about it.
In the old days in England, you couldn’t do it at all. You had to have your case presented to the judges by someone admitted to the bar. Even today, it is highly discouraged that people proceed pro se, since it is almost always a poor choice.
Is it less discouraged to go pro se if you’re a lawyer yourself? Or just us laypeople that get scolded?
Lawyers are discouraged from doing it, too.
“The man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.”
I always wonder what this means for the judge who acts as his own supreme court justice…
Do you mean laws? Or do you mean that a judge can just do whatever he/she wants? If I’m dragged into court on a criminal case, and I insist upon defending myself pro se (rejecting a public defender) what happens? Do they just go on “without” me? Or does the judge send me to jail for contempt, in perpetuity.
Judges (in lower courts) don’t like pro se simply because the person usually makes a lot of mistakes and that causes the judge a lot of headaches–delays in the trial.
OP’s question is kind of moot, because the “layperson” has to get a cert petition through to be heard in the Supreme Court. If the “layperson” can write one that the justices will hear, then that “layperson” probably is capable of arguing his or her case orally. If you read transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments, you’ll see they draw on common reasoning–and, of course, they refer to precedents from centuries ago. There shouldn’t be a law, however, that prevents a layperson simply because he or she doesn’t have a law degree or hasn’t passed a bar exam.
With all due respect to DSYoungEsq (and to my own father, who litigated tort), the legal system is an Old Boys’ establishment, whereby “You have to hire a lawyer!” is a mantra that keeps a lot of lawyers in business. I don’t think there’s a single judge in this country who isn’t a lawyer, and doesn’t like to see people taking their cases to court without a lawyer. As a kid, I sat in many a case where my father just said the obvious–something his client could easily have said. And he surely charged them a lot.
Lawyers seem to think that just because they’ve gone through a mere three years of law school (which is mostly just jumping through intellectual hoops) and passed a bar exam that they’re magical wizards who can do things no other mortal can. And that’s why everyone else should pay them lots of bucks. Well, if you’re a corporate lawyer, maybe that’s right. But if my neighbor infringes upon my property, for example, I can handle it myself.
I don’t care about “the old days in England,” and if it’s a poor choice, then I’ll lose, it’s not the judge to decide.
Didn’t that atheist father argue his own case against a classroom’s group recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance? Ah, here it is:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/
“Newdow, who has medical and legal degrees, argued his own case before the high-court justices in March.”
guizot, you’ll not hear me say that attorneys (please differentiate from lawyers) are anything particularly special. And yes, there is a certain element of “we’re in and not letting anyone else in if we can help it” going on.
But despite what you may believe, there is something that an attorney learns in law school. It isn’t the “law” per se. It’s how to think properly about the law. Unfortunately, in this day and age of tons and tons of attorneys, some of them don’t learn it quite so well. But as is often demonstrated on this board, lack of a legal education handicaps you in many ways when it comes to legal thinking.
Which isn’t to say it can’t be done, but it is significantly harder without the education you receive in a law school.
As for your question about what happens if a criminal defendant insists upon attempting to represent himself before the court: it will depend upon the type of case. You can ask Bricker about the chances there. In non-criminal cases, it gets less likely, actually. Complex patent litigation? VERY unlikely. And yes, it’s in large part because you’ll make the procedure a nightmare, but it’s also because you won’t know how to properly present your case to maximize your chances to win. For example, you will ask questions of witnesses you don’t know the answer to. 
I think your first statement is overly broad. There are many different kinds of courts, obviously, and I can’t speak for anywhere else, but based on my 16 years of experience as a non-attorney court employee, adult litigants in Family Court in NY State frequently proceed pro se, up to and including at trial. I’m not saying that it is a great idea to go it alone, particularly if one has the means to hire a GOOD attorney with Family Court experience (as opposed to dragging in their reluctant cousin Jim the tax attorney), but no permission is required.
SCOTUS is another whole kettle of fish, obviously.
I was under the impression that in Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda had to have an attorney argue his case before the Supreme Court. Was this merely due to the fact that he was incarcerated?
Thanks,
Rob
John J. Flynn represented Miranda before the Supreme Court.
And you can listen to oral arguments at the link below: