# On: Is self-representing in court a bad idea? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [December 20, 2014, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719 "2014-12-20T05:15:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2015, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/41 "2015-02-08T04:28:00Z")
[QUOTE=RTrump] They have the court staff so bound that they dare not utter even a simple phrase, if it appears that it will look like they are giving you legal advice (rendering legal advice is highly illegal, uniform across the entire United States). [/QUOTE] Two points: 1. The reason court staff will not give legal advice, other than on the most basic procedural matters, is not because it’s legal advice; it’s because the court must remain neutral as between the parties. The court staff are part of the court; if they start to give advice to Party A (“If I were you, I would do X because that’s most likely to help you.”) then the Party B can ask, “Wait a minute! Whose side are you on! That’s unfair!” And, if a point came up in court when the judge says to Party A, “Why on earth did you do X??” and Party A says, “Well, the court staff told me to!” it puts the judge in a bad spot. Court staff can’t give legal advice, because as part of the court, they have to remain neutral. 2. Giving legal advice generally isn’t a problem; most prohibitions I’m aware of is that you can’t give legal advice _for a fee_ unless you are legally trained. That’s a type of consumer protection legislation, and is common in a lot of other areas. For example, when I was having some yard work done, I asked the contractor if he could hook up my yard light. He said he couldn’t, because I had hired him and was paying money. He didn’t have the qualification as an electrician to install anything electrical for a fee. If he had just been my buddy doing me a favour, he could, but not when money was changing hands. Same thing for lawyers and other professionals. ---
**Author:** ![RTrump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/67e7ee/32.png) [@RTrump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTrump)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/42 "2015-02-09T18:51:35Z")
Muffin, I agree in part and I understand the point about criticizing the “legal community” subjectively before gathering the facts. But I would submit that my motivation in stating that the legal community complains about pro pers more than it offers solutions is based in fact…albeit from one particular jurisdiction. When security was less stringent back in the 1980’s, I, as a pro per, was often invited back to judge’s chambers along with the opposing attorney(s). I got a good hands on education through observing and interacting with judges and attorneys “back stage.” The general consensus back then, as I believe now, was the cringing feeling that attorneys and judges get when a pro per is in their midst. Yet, for all the angst concerning pro pers, no one offered solutions. They just prayed for the day and hour that the pro per would get its case disposed of. As I still appear on my own behalf in my own affairs, this sentiment still exists, at least as far as my own experiences. That’s not to say that judges and attorneys say, Trump, get out of here! But, again, only expressing my own experience, I’m often talked “at” and “through” rather than talked to by the legal profession. As far as I know, (and there have been compliments through the years about my trial preparation) I have always been fully prepared to present my positions. Irishman - once again, a solid argument. I think my interpretation of the gravamen question is not so much “is it a good idea.” In the face value of the question, I believe both sides of this (for lack of a gentler term) debate are in agreement that it is not a good idea. As Muffin has stated, and I too, when we look elsewhere at other professions, we can conduct our own actions in those professions as well, but it is never a good idea. I think I have been coming from the point, “you can” represent yourself, which I now admit is an entirely different animal. As Muffin points out, if we just wave a magic wand and people start filing cases on their own without understanding “hearsay,” “rules of evidence,” and procedural rules, its a considerable drain on the system. A judge is not…nor should he/she…going to say, oh, Mr. Trump. I see you don’t understand hearsay. Let’s take a day or so in continuance while you study up. Northern Piper - Agreed. I think this makes Muffin’s point that pro pers such as myself have to be cautious of making over-broad statements before gathering a factual basis. I stand by my criticism of court staff, but as you point out, there is a very sound reason why they act as they do. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/43 "2015-02-09T20:28:52Z")
I’m a lawyer, but I would hire a lawyer if I got in serious legal problems. I would not attempt to represent myself. The problems with self-representation are twofold: (1) as everyone has said, ignorance of the laws and procedures (not to mention that advocacy is an art that requires much practice); but also (2) when the problem you are dealing with is your own, you may well lack the objectivity required to deal with it in the most effective manner! You get, as it were, emotionally invested, which may make you come across as unreasonable, or unwilling to accept the sort of compromises necessary to achieve the best results for yourself. To extend the analogy, physicians in many places are strongly discouraged from operating on or otherwise practicing medicine on themselves or their near relations (except for minor stuff or in emergencies) - not because they lack knowledge, but because they may have troubles with objectivity. > **[CPSO - Physician Treatment of Self, Family Members, or Others Close to Them](https://www.cpso.on.ca/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Physician-Treatment-of-Self-Family-Members-or)** > > This policy sets out the circumstances in which it may be acceptable for physicians to provide treatment for themselves, family members, or others close to them. The same goes for lawyering, in spades. I would no more want to represent myself in a serious matter, than I would want to take out my own appendix (or my kid’s). ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2015, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/44 "2015-02-09T22:29:32Z")
Back when my wife was an active lawyer, she had a case involving a pro-se plaintiff who was probably mentally ill. She was beyond frustrated with it, because multiple judges kept giving this loon breaks, second chances and wide latitude in procedural matters because he was a pro-se, and because he was clearly somewhat unhinged. Her comment to me was that had he been a real lawyer, she’d likely have either obtained a summary judgment against him off the bat, or barring that, settled out of court with very disadvantageous terms for him. But since he was a pro-se, and a nut, judges wouldn’t grant the motion for summary judgment, kept giving him second and third chances with procedural lapses and omissions and and this guy wouldn’t settle out of court either. IIRC, she managed to get his case dismissed on some kind of procedural violation that a finally fed-up judge granted. That said, she said that you don’t want to represent yourself for that very reason- you don’t know the procedural rules, you don’t know the law or how it’s typically applied, and you usually don’t have the time to do it, etc… ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2015, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/45 "2015-02-09T23:59:21Z")
There’s a big difference between a person who cannot afford a lawyer and has to wander through the system without enough assistance, and a nutter who clogs up the system. Regular folks slow things down because they take longer at hearings and need adjournments to fix mistakes, but the real problem is the nutters who act for themselves and make a bad name for self-represented people. What’s a nutter? Someone who has a belief in his or her own case, contrary to any reasonable analysis, and the determination to follow it through regardless of any cost/benefit ratio. Whenever a person wants to hire me to “fight on principle”, I run away, for I deal in reality – real facts and real law, not principle. For example, this morning, a lawyer, a judge and I settled a matter that had been banging about the court for seven years until the previously self-represented nutter finally broke down, stopped fighting on principle, and hired the lawyer. Seven years of emotional stress on both the parties could have been resolved in a few weeks if the nutter had not insisted on being self-represented. Then, as we were leaving the courtroom, a previous client whom I had dumped went into the courtroom self-represented. What for? To fight on principle. Eventually he will go down in flames, and remain bitter about the unfair system. He’s just another nutter clogging up the system, and blaming his own psychological problems on money grubbing lawyers and crooked judges. Last week I was in court filing a settlement that opposing counsel and I had worked out at very little cost to our clients. While I was waiting my turn, a self-represented person started yelling and swearing at the judge because the self-represented person on the other side asked for an adjournment to hire a lawyer. What it comes down to is that if some folks don’t have a crisis, they will make a crisis. They end up in court because they can’t handle reality, but court is the very last place they should be without a lawyer, because court requires one to handle reality. Now let’s have a quick look at the numbers (I know, it’s not a big enough sample). Four cases, in which one matter was delayed for years by a self-represented nutter, once case which will continue to be a mess due to a self-represented nutter, one case that was derailed and nearly came to violence due to a self-represented nutter, and one that went smoothly with both parties having lawyers. In my area of practice (mostly family law), if a matter ends up in court for anything other than the making a consent order, usually one party or the other or both are emotionally unbalanced. If and unbalanced person is self-represented, it makes a mess in a system that is based on rational positions being taken by people making rational arguments. (By analogy, have a look at SDMB’s Great Debates when the nutters crap all over a thread, and compare it to a thread in which rational but conflicting arguments are strongly but rationally argued.) When you hear lawyers or judges complaining about self-represented people, it’s not about the people who are rational and pursuing their cases as best they can. We (systemically and individually) try to help them as best we can. Our primary complaints are about the nutters who grind the system to a halt. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/46 "2015-02-10T00:15:29Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I would no more want to represent myself in a serious matter, than I would want to take out my own appendix (or my kid’s). Quoted for truth. But on what I considered to be a silly matter, I once defended myself (a nutter sued me after he lost to my client at Superior Court, Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal – most oddly, he also sued a handful of other lawyers along with me despite none of them having anything to do with the matter). It worked out well: not only did I get costs, but an embarrassed relative of the plaintiff gave me a mint set of GS race skis and a mint set of Super-G race skis. 🙂 WHEEEEEE! Where’s the skier smiley? ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/47 "2015-02-10T03:42:08Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I’m a lawyer, but I would hire a lawyer if I got in serious legal problems. I would not attempt to represent myself. I’m a lawyer, and while I’ve never had serious legal problems (or any kind of legal problems for that matter), I still hire a lawyer for even the most mundane things: a will, a real estate transfer, the polite and civil divorce I went through some years back. Why? Well, I’ve got someone on my side who has no emotional or financial investment in the matter, who can explain to me all the options I have, and who can deal with the matter reasonably if things go sideways. Certainly, if I did get into serious legal trouble, I’d lawyer up at the earliest possible opportunity. Emotion, principle, and suchlike are my problems; getting the matter through to a reasonable resolution that both I and the other party can live with is the job of two people who have no such investment in our dispute: my lawyer and theirs. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/48 "2015-02-10T14:09:16Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > When you hear lawyers or judges complaining about self-represented people, it’s not about the people who are rational and pursuing their cases as best they can. We (systemically and individually) try to help them as best we can. Our primary complaints are about the nutters who grind the system to a halt. The type of law I practice is very different from family law - quite frankly, family lawyers have my respect: I don’t think I could handle dealing with other people’s intimate emotional stress! I do mostly pharmaceutical regulatory work - not IP, but pure regulatory - stuff like determining whether drug ads are within federal and/or provincial laws, or drafting clinical trial agreements; plus some appearences before various administrative tribunals and courts - needless to say, I never actually encounter the self-represented in this line of work. 😃 However, when I was just starting out, I did have one doozy of a self-represented nutter case - I was junioring in a case where it was established that, in Ontario, Martians do not have standing to sue. 😃 > [@](#): > > 1 EPSTEIN J. (endorsement):— This endorsement relates to a series of motions brought on behalf of a number of the defendants in two related actions commenced in this Court by the plaintiff, Rene Joly. The moving parties seek orders striking out the Statements of Claim and thereby dismissing the actions on the grounds that the pleadings disclose no cause of action (rule 21.01(3)(b)) or are frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court (rule 25.11). > > 2 Mr. Joly’s claims in these two actions, and in several others not currently before me, all centre on his firm assertion that he is not a human being; rather a martian. As I understand them, the nature of his complaints against the numerous defendants who include a number of doctors, medical facilities and government agencies is that they have conspired with the American government in its attempts to eliminate him and have otherwise taken various steps to interfere with his ability to establish himself and live freely as a martian. > > 3 As indicated, there are two actions before me. At the beginning of the hearing Mr. Joly advised me that he has recently commenced a third action against, among others, the Central Intelligence Agency, President Clinton and the Honourable Anne McClellan for interfering with his D.N.A. test results that prove that he is, in fact, not human. > > 4 Given the related issues in the three actions brought in this Court, I ordered that the three proceedings be consolidated. All parties consented to this order. An order will issue to this effect. Unfortunately, I failed to note the action number of the third action affected by this order. > > 5 As another preliminary matter, I should indicate that given the unusual nature of the plaintiff’s claims, a discussion took place at the beginning of argument as to whether I should order that a hearing be conducted pursuant to the provisions of rule 7 of the Rules of Civil procedure for a determination as to whether the plaintiff was in a position properly to represent his interests on the motions or whether a litigation guardian should be appointed. As a result of this issue having been raised, I arranged for a reporter to record the proceedings and the plaintiff agreed to testify under oath and answer certain questions posed by Mr. Novak, counsel who appeared on behalf of a number of the defendants. At the conclusion of this form of hearing and having considered the submissions made, I determined that there was no reason to delay the argument of the motions. I made the observation that in every respect Mr. Joly properly conducted himself before the Court. He presented himself as polite, articulate, intelligent and appeared to understand completely the issues before the Court and the consequences should I grant the relief sought. There was nothing before me, other than the uniqueness of the pleadings in question, for me, on my own volition, to adjourn, pending a hearing to determine if Mr. Joly is under some form of disability. This observation, the fact that no one was really urging me to adjourn and the costs to all concerned of having these proceedings protracted, factored into my decision to proceed. > > 6 Finally, I add that at the request of the parties, leave was granted to adduce evidence at the hearing. Both Mr. Novak and Mr. Joly presented evidence to the Court in support of their submissions. > > 7 The crux of the various arguments advanced orally and in the written material is that Mr. Joly’s claims disclose no cause of action and are otherwise frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. It was also argued that the tort of conspiracy was not properly pleaded and that no damages have been identified or claimed. It was further pointed out that several of the defendants are not legal entities and are not capable of being sued. > > 8 Mr. Joly, in a well prepared, thoughtful argument submitted that he had evidence of falsification of records and related wrongdoing. On the pivotal point of Mr. Joly’s being in fact a martian Mr. Joly advised me that the only reason he was not now able to satisfy the Court that he is a martian, not a human, is due to the falsification of his D.N.A. test results by the Americans. > > 9 The authorities relied upon by the moving parties are well known. On a motion to strike out a pleading, the Court must accept the facts as alleged in the Statement of Claim as proven unless they are patently ridiculous and incapable of proof and must read the Statement of Claim generously with allowance for inadequacies due to drafting deficiencies. See Nash v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (1995), 27 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.). Perhaps the leading case is that of Carey Canada Inc. v. Hunt et al. (1990) 74 D.L.R. (4th) 321 (S.C.C) in which the test in Canada is described as assuming that the facts as stated in the Statement of Claim can be proved, the Court must be satisfied that it is “plain and obvious” that the plaintiff’s statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action. > > 10 Concerning rule 25.11, the Court will dismiss or stay an action as being frivolous, vexatious or abusive only in the clearest cases where it is plain and obvious the case cannot succeed. The decision in Steiner v. Canada [1996] F.C.J. No. 1356 (Fed. T.D.) makes it clear that if a pleading does not present a rational argument, either on the evidence or in law, in support of the claim, and casts unreasonable aspersions is frivolous. > > 11 In my opinion there are at lease two reasons why the two Statements of Claim in question ought to be struck and the actions dismissed. > > **1. Neither pleading discloses a cause of action. While conspiracy to do harm to someone is the basis of many actions in this Court there is a fundamental flaw in the position of Mr. Joly. Rule 1.03 defines plaintiff as “a person who commences an action”. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines person as “an individual human being”. Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides that a person includes a corporation. It follows that if the plaintiff is not a person in that he is neither a human being nor a corporation, he cannot be a plaintiff as contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The entire basis of Mr. Joly’s actions is that he is a martian, not a human being. There is certainly no suggestion that he is a corporation. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Joly, on his pleading as drafted, has no status before the Court.** > > 1. In respect to the motions brought under rule 25.11 I am of the view that the test has been passed in the circumstances of this case. In other words, I am satisfied that the claims are frivolous and vexatious and constitute an abuse of the process of this Court. In addition to the fact that the tort of conspiracy has not been remotely properly pleaded, no damages have been claimed and many of the defendants are not even legal entities capable of being sued. More importantly, with all respect to Mr. Joly and his perception of reality, these actions are patently ridiculous and should not be allowed to continue as they utilize scarce public resources not to mention the time and money of the numerous defendants who have been forced to defend these actions. > > 12 In the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the moving parties are entitled to the relief requested. The Statements of Claim in both actions are struck and the actions are dismissed. > > 13 The defendants are entitled to their costs of the actions but it would seem to be that the defence has likely incurred little if any costs in defending the actions. The moving parties are certainly entitled to their costs of the motions, if demanded. If the parties require any assistance with respect to the resolution of costs, they may arrange a conference call through the assistance of my secretary. [Emphasis added] The case was _Joly v. Pelletier_, [1999] O.J. No. 1728 (Ont. S.C.) That will be tough when actual Martians arrive. They will be so pissed. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/49 "2015-02-10T14:23:32Z")
I’m glad to see you capitalized “Martians,” even if the court didn’t. I certainly would - Venusians, Jovians, Neptunians etc. all get the same courtesy from my court. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2015, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/50 "2015-02-10T14:30:22Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > I’m glad to see you capitalized “Martians,” even if the court didn’t. I certainly would - Venusians, Jovians, Neptunians etc. all get the same courtesy from my court. But do they have standing? And just how often do these extraterrestrial plaintiffs put in an appearance? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2015, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/51 "2015-02-11T02:03:49Z")
That is hilarious! ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/52 "2015-02-12T00:58:51Z")
Surely one Oxford dictionary definition of “person” wouldn’t pass muster in a court of law should an actual extra-terrestrial find himself in court, would it? Or, if E.T.s are too esoteric, suppose dolphins are found to be intelligent animals on par with humans. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/53 "2015-02-12T13:58:38Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > Surely one Oxford dictionary definition of “person” wouldn’t pass muster in a court of law should an actual extra-terrestrial find himself in court, would it? Or, if E.T.s are too esoteric, suppose dolphins are found to be intelligent animals on par with humans. The judge merely found himself a way to stop this guy from pestering him and everyone else in the world. “You’re a Martian? Sorry, you don’t have any standing in Earthly courts. You’ll have to file your complaints directly with Emperor Ming the Merciless of Mongo. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/54 "2015-02-12T14:29:12Z")
> [@qazwart](#): > > The judge merely found himself a way to stop this guy from pestering him and everyone else in the world. > > “You’re a Martian? Sorry, you don’t have any standing in Earthly courts. You’ll have to file your complaints directly with Emperor Ming the Merciless of Mongo. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” You got that right - but there is _slightly_ more to it: a sort of judicial in-joke that takes some background to explain. 😉 I actually had some dealings with Madame Justice Epstien some time after this case and I asked her about this ruling - why make this point when you could just say 'frivolous and vexatious, out with you?" (as she _also_ did). The reason has to do with the state of the law on summary proceedings in Ontario. It used to be the case that no evidence was admissable on either a summary judgment motion (rule 20) or a motion to strike (rule 21) - something (many) lower court judges found highly irritating: they felt too many useless cases were going to (expensive time consuming) trials. They changed the rules to allow evidence in rule 20 motions since. What this sometimes did, was cause judges to tie themselves in logical knots trying to find purely law-based solutions to get rid of cases where they strongly suspected that the evidence (if they could only hear it) was, in fact, non-existent, absurd, or totally contrary to the case as pled. Anyway, here we have a case that was obviously absurd, it could actually pass the high onus necessary to get it turfed as frivolous and vexatious - so she thought to have a little fun pointing out, to other lawyers and judges, the absurdity of not being able to admit evidence, by finding a purely ‘law based’ argument as to why the pleading should be struck out: that he did not have standing. She could not evaluate, as part of that particular exercise, whether he was or was not in fact a Martian (that is a matter of evidence and she could not admit any evidence). ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/55 "2015-02-13T23:25:29Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Anyway, here we have a case that was obviously absurd, it could actually pass the high onus necessary to get it turfed as frivolous and vexatious - so she thought to have a little fun pointing out, to other lawyers and judges, the absurdity of not being able to admit evidence, by finding a purely ‘law based’ argument as to why the pleading should be struck out: that he did not have standing. > > She could not evaluate, as part of that particular exercise, whether he was or was not in fact a Martian (that is a matter of evidence and she could not admit any evidence). Obviously you spoke with her so you have more insight than me, but I thought that her point was well taken, even if hilarious. The sole basis of his complaint was that he was a Martian and that these various entities conspired to make him look like an Earthling. If he’s not a Martian he has no claim, but as the Judge pointed out, even if he IS a Martian, he has no standing to sue. So there is really no need to consider evidence of his planetary home. I agree with what others have said, but I would like to add one more for criminal matters: earwagging the prosecutor. It’s much easier for me to say “Sure the kid’s a dumbass, but what he did wasn’t a crime!” than it would for the defendant so say the exact same thing. A prosecutor looks at the defendant as the guilty party. He looks at me as someone doing his job to help the guilty party and will take my representations more seriously than a pro se defendant. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2015, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/56 "2015-02-14T00:53:14Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > However, when I was just starting out, I did have one doozy of a self-represented nutter case - I was junioring in a case where it was established that, in Ontario, Martians do not have standing to sue. 😃 > > [Emphasis added] > > The case was _Joly v. Pelletier_, [1999] O.J. No. 1728 (Ont. S.C.) I heard about that case, and I’ve referred to it once before. [You supplied the details](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15236672#post15236672). I did not realise that you were personally involved with the case. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/57 "2015-02-26T12:55:15Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I do have one major beef with the article: maybe I missed it but it appears that **Bricker** fails to declare his interest as a lawyer. > [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > What interest would that be? > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I mentioned this. Zero responses. Like **Elendil’s Heir** , I’m not seeing what interest **Bricker** should have declared. If you had a column on electrical wiring written by an electrical engineer, or a column on tax returns written by an accountant, would you expect them to declare an “interest”? In my personal experience, when a self-rep goes up against a lawyer, the self-rep usually loses. And, the file drags out two or three times longer than it should have. So, you might say that a lawyer has an interest in _having_ self-reps appear in court: on the other side of a file! The lawyer has a much better chance of being successful for their client, and will get paid more because of the increased number of appearances. Of course, that comes at the expense of the client, and the waste of everyone’s time: the court, the lawyer, the client. It’s not in anyone’s interest, really, that time be wasted and the cost of a file be increased beyond what is appropriate. That increases the overall cost of access to justice. Lawyers are professionally obliged to support access to justice. Cost and time barriers to access to justice are in no-one’s interest. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/58 "2015-02-26T12:58:51Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Like **Elendil’s Heir** , I’m not seeing what interest **Bricker** should have declared. If you had a column on electrical wiring written by an electrical engineer, or a column on tax returns written by an accountant, would you expect them to declare an “interest”? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/59 "2015-02-26T14:09:10Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > I heard about that case, and I’ve referred to it once before. [You supplied the details](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15236672#post15236672). > > I did not realise that you were personally involved with the case. A very minor one: a partner at my firm was representing one of the dozen or more defendants - I did some research for him on the state of the law on dismissing claims for being frivolous & vexatious. My main input was actually after the case was over, when I had the opportunity to ask the judge about it. Purely by chance, somewhat later, I was working with her in a commission of enquiry. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2015, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719/60 "2015-02-26T18:21:40Z")
In Ontario last year the rules of civil procedure were changed to permit the court _[on its own initiative](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-194/latest/rro-1990-reg-194.html#RULE_2_1_GENERAL_POWERS_TO_STAY_OR_DISMISS_IF_VEXATIOUS __ETC__ 30397)_ to toss out a case that is frivolous, vexatious or an abusive of process. Yay! Could be as simple as sending a letter to the judge asking the judge to read the file rather than going through the time and expense of making a motion. Now if only they’d make a similar change to the family law rules, for that’s where there are far more self-represented parties. Full disclosure: I am not an electrician, although I did purchase a laptop battery on-line today. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-is-self-representing-in-court-a-bad-idea/707719.md?page=4)