That must have been an awkward lunch. 
I get where you’re coming from but your point hinges on an assumption that self-representation is not undertaken by normal people because of conventional as opposed to actual wisdom. However, IMHO actually self-representation is not (at least by choice) undertaken by normal people because its highly sub-optimal in most cases and not due to merely conventional wisdom.
I basically act for medium and large corporations who are always going use lawyers for the same reason they don’t mow their own lawns. I don’t have a stake in the outcome of this debate one way or the other.
I don’t agree with this. Even if it’s true that self-representation is a bad idea, if it were to (incorrectly) become the conventional wisdom that it’s a good idea, then you would have a lot more normal people - and desirable clients - going that route.
It’s true that many of these people would be harming themselves and clogging up the system in the process. But that’s another argument. To the extent that the argument is about the self-interest of lawyers in opposing self-representation, the argument that “most pro-ses are nuts anyway” is circular.
I would observe that 1) the supply-demand situation in one part of the market has a ripple effect on other parts, 2) even someone who is personally not impacted is influenced by the prevailing opinion of the profession as a whole, and most importantly 3) perhaps you personally have no stake in it. I don’t think everyone holding that position is necessarily motivated by self-interest (especially since I think that position is largely correct anyway).
Is this a report of your personal observation that has been through actual experience, or some other data source? Or just assumption?
Because it wasn’t deserving of a response. Someone (a plumber?) who’s paid to deal with natural gas lines shouldn’t have to post a “disclaimer” to tell someone “Dude…DON’T JUST CUT THE GAS LINE WITH YOUR BLOWTORCH! Get a professional!”
An electrician who, hearing that someone is considering getting up on a ladder and soldering a downed electrical line back together shouldn’t have to say “Before I say that it would be a bad idea to do this, I need to let you know that I am in the pay of BIG ELECTRICAL and have VESTED INTERESTS”
It’s a dumb concern/objection.
For me, it was in part watching a poster on a message board post hundreds of BOLD-FACED, BIG FONTED, COLOR-WORD-EMPHASISED rants on how he or she was going to beat the system by being his or her own lawyer and in the end, the judge said more-or-less “there’s nothing to support this person’s case”.
Not the facts.
Stiod, your reputation as a self-represented person precedes you.
Nope, you’re doing it again. You can’t get away from the idea it’s just conventional wisdom.
If it became (incorrect) conventional wisdom that it was a good idea, then a lot more normal people would try it and find it didn’t work, and conventional wisdom would line up with actual wisdom once again.
As to self interest, the knock on effect doesn’t worry me. I’m well over halfway through my career and I’m a senior specialist in my field. If every retail lawyer suddenly ran out of work tomorrow as a consequence of self representation, the impact on people like me wouldn’t be felt for a decade after I’d retired.
A current story in the New York Times involves this question. The Pigeon King and the Ponzi Scheme That Shook Canada - The New York Times
You’re welcome.
Fascinating - thank you! Although the whole article is worth reading, the trial stuff is in section 5, “Catharsis,” for those who just want to see that. The defendant definitely did not help his case by representing himself.
I went to court for the traditional ‘Speeding while a 19-year old’ most of us did at 19. People I knew suggested I get a lawyer. I just never got around to it.
2 cases before me - 19 year old kid up for speeding. Judge: ‘Have you anything to say?’ Elderly gent in nice suit gets up and says ‘He’s a good boy, he wont do it again, needs his license for work, blah, blah,blah’. Judge: ‘3 months license suspension’.
1 case before me. Kid. Another distinguished looking gent gets up: ‘Good boy, wont do it again, needs license’. Judge: ‘3 months’.
I’m up. Judge ‘Have you anything to say’? Me: ‘I’m a good boy, I wont do it again, I need my license for work’. Judge stares at me: ‘$200 fine’.
From a purely rational view, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with our legal system where you can only fully understand the laws of the land if you are a trained expert. These laws are supposed to be for our protection, and for ensuring a smooth running of society - but over centuries, the concept has become completely twisted.
“So… I hear you’re single…”
Not completely and not right away.
It sounds like you gained by being self-represented. But I don’t know if that’s a valid conclusion. Even if the charges against all 3 of you were the same, the details of the violation might have been different, and - even more likely - the past histories might have been different (people generally hire lawyers for traffic violations if they have serious charges or have a history of violations). The judge has all this info in front of him when making his decision.
I don’t think it’s so much knowledge of the law as it is knowledge of court/trial/testimony rules and procedures. These are not so relevant to people who don’t do these things professionally.
When an occupation has been considered one of the least trustworthy for ages now resulting in being the butt of jokes poking fun at that dishonesty, it’s hard to compare it to being a plumber.
I haven’t heard any good plumber jokes lately, myself.
That said, I would expect a plumber to say he was a plumber because, forgetting about ethics and disclosure, it’s nice to know that the person giving the advice is an expert and didn’t just stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Do you realise the implications of what you just said in the context of your own point?