I work for a federal agency.
Unfavorable administrative decisions are appealed to the district courts.
I have been studying the matter and the only pro se litigants I found who won damages, such as Robert Kearns, inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper who won $10 Million Pro Se, did so decades ago. I found one guy who won 1200 dollars but if there is any substantial amount of money involved pro ses are simply not allowed any kind of discovery, any oral hearings, or any jury trial.
Pro se litigation is very risky. I was ordered to pay $102,000 in attorney bills to law firms that didn’t even exist at the time and didn’t file any documents. I was not found to have made any fraudulent statements. When I tried to continue, USDOJ incarcerated me for 5 months without any sort of criminal accusation, any trial, any arraignment, bail hearing etc. They said in court that I wasn’t allowed an evidentiary hearing because I wasn’t accused of a crime. The Feds don’t care, the feds plan is apparently to fill jails with so called vexatious litigants. Any pro se litigant who persists is called vexatious because the definition of a vexatious litigant is a litigant who loses and all pro se litigants lose. http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20081031/NEWS/810319951&parentprofile=search
Getting a lawyer is only for rich people. Trials cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Legal fees aren’t even tax deductible for an individual. If you have a lawyer on a percentage and you turn down a low ball offer and fire your lawyer then you will have to pay the lawyer anyway for however much time he claims he spent. Big law firms and insurance companies can afford to pay for prostitutes or whatever judges want and need.
I’d love to hear more about this…
Do you have a case number or cite for this claim? Through hard experience we’ve learned to be kind of suspicious and wary of people’s claims that were mistreated by the justice system.
Having been a pro se litigant for quite a few years now, I realize that it depends on what state you are in, and what court you are in. In Georgia, forget Federal Court. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, it ain’t going to happen. That is the way it is.
One individual that has also attempted to fight within the federal court in Atlanta, he actually did the research to see how many pro se litigants had prevailed in that Court System. His answer ZERO. He tried to get the US Supreme Court to Grant his Petition on the matter, of course they Denied his Petition. His name is William Windsor, a very schooled, and knowledgable man. His website is
Many of us will continue our attempts for justice in Georgia, and maybe, just maybe, one day, someone will listen…
If I knew nothing about the Courts, I would probably not believe what this person said. But knowing the Courts, and being a long time watcher of the Richard Fine case, as well as other cases, where an individual has been jailed for no reason. I have to tend to agree.
It is a shame that it is the way it is…
Tommy Sheridan, a flamboyant Scottish MP, represented himself recently in a libel case against a British tabloid newspaper and bent them over. Won substantial damages, this after initially hiring a leading Edinburgh barrister for representation, then sacking him and doing the job himself.
Unfortunately for Tommy, his initial success seemed to be more based on force of personality than evidence to hand. He lost the appeal, was found guilty of perjury and is now in prison. Good whilst it lasted though 
Fun fact: Sheridan actually went to law school a couple of years later, but dropped out.
One problem I would imagine is that people who think they can do a better job than a trained lawyer probably also start with a misguided view of how the law works. Maybe once a year or two it’s funny to watch a show like Judge Judy, where people seem to think that because the other person did something wrong, that entitles them to retaliate with a similar illegal act. If people approach with that attitude, it’s no wonder the courts shoot them down fast.
Then there’s the ones who really do try to do a proper job. The problem is, a lot of law is citing quotes and laws; if you haven’t done the deep and dirty homework and/or have the depth of experience, you cannot counter the other side with counter-example cases or pick apart why their precedent does not apply, so you will have some problems. I’m guessing the opposition lawyer will make his points and objections as legalese as possible and hope the judge will get tired of interpreting it into plain English for the other side. The judge will not sit here playing solitaire while you read up on the case the other guy just mentioned.
That used to drive my wife up the wall too. Normal case, 2 lawyers and a judge. They’d do their normal dance with motions for summary judgment and what not, then get together and bang out a settlement. Everyone was expected to be professional, get their filings in on time, do them correctly, and know the right things to file and plead.
Get a pro-se in there, and it became a circus, because judges are really apprehensive about crushing a pro-se based on procedural stuff; apparently it tends to get a lot of attention and make it look like the legal professionals are trying to stifle the little guys’ access to court.
So they cut those pro-se fools a LOT of slack, and tend to aggravate the lawyers who would otherwise have long since settled or got the case thrown out or summarily judged.
If the truth be known, of course, depending upon what state you are in, but no matter how well the pro se litigant does, or why he is representing himself, they are not cut any slack. In GA they are held to a higher standard than attorneys. No matter how well they conduct their part of the case, no matter how good their pleadings, no matter how punctually they get their Motions, Responses, and Replies filed, they are treated like dirt. They are treated like they have their nerve coming in there and disrupting the good ole boys club.
We have been pro se, and we are now paralegals, thanks to attorneys who continually lied about what was up in the case where we used attorneys. After $40,000- $60,000 and being pooped on in the end, no more.
I understand that not in all states, attorneys are so untrustworthy, and not all attorneys treat opposing counsel like dirt, and they don’t all talk to each other the way they do in GA. I can appreciate that.
In a time, when foreclosures are running rampant throughout the entire country, and people are losing their homes, and bankruptcy is up, jobs are down, and all yall want to talk about is how a pro se litigant disrupts the court, and how they don’t follow the rules, etc. Some of us have conducted ourselves every bit as professionally as any attorney, and considering the way attorneys talk to us and each other, it is not the pro se that causes the problem.
And as for “the little guys”, that is the very type of thing that makes the rest of the kangaroo courts look down on the pro se litigant. Everyone wanting to condemn them for trying to enforce their rights in the courts, using the law.
I’ve tripped up pro se litigants on procedure a few times before, to the point that it cost them their cases. It was kinda fun because, from all I knew, they were total bullshitters and deserved it.
As a magistrate I hear small claims cases quite often. In Ohio, you can sue in small claims for up to $3000. You may represent yourself, or you may have a lawyer; the great majority of people are pro se. If one side has a lawyer and the other doesn’t, I try to make it a point to say that I’m there to see that there is a fair trial for both sides, and no one is at any competitive disadvantage just because they don’t have a lawyer.
Pro se litigants win a little more than half the time, in my experience. Those who win tend to (a) have a good case on the merits, (b) come to court prepared, and © remain polite and calm at all times. Miss any of those three factors and your chances of winning nosedive.
They rarely win in federal court.
I rarely have an unrepresented litigant on the other side, so I don’t have a great deal of experience with it, but as a data point, I happened to argue a case last week where the other party was unrepresented (his lawyer withdrew at the last minute). He argued the matter himself, unsuccessfully.
However, I did not follow md2000’s suggestion of using a lot of legalese - that’s more likely to get the judges angry at me, not at the unrepresented individual. The judges are smart enough to see through an attempt to take advantage of an unrepresented individual in that way, and could likely consider it an unfair tactic on my part. In fact, I did the opposite: I tried to put my legal arguments as simply and as straightforwardly as possible, in hopes that the unrepresented party would understand my position and be able to respond to it.
When I have encountered an unrepresented individual, I find that almost invariably, they want to argue the facts, and nothing but the facts. Fair enough, I guess - that’s the most important thing about the case, from their perspective. However, it’s the combination of the facts and the law that is crucial to the outcome, and the lack of knowledge of the law inevitably counts against them. Plus, what may be of great personal importance to them about the facts may not actually have much relevance to the issue before the Court.
That’s usually been my experience, too.
In GA we have a $15,000 cap in Magistrate Court. It used to be a lot less. I am glad to see that someone here is not out to condemn the pro se litigant. James and I have spent a lot of time trying to teach pro se litigants that if you follow the rules, all the rules, and don’t expect to be treated special, if you expect to be held to a higher standard, keep your emotions out of the equation, and be respectful, that you have a much better chance of coming out with a better ruling.
With the foreclosue hell that has plagued the courts, and not many attorneys well versed in what is happening, there are a lot more pro se litigants going into the courts. Many of them are willing to learn the rules, know the laws, and are citing good case law. Many are arguing their cases very well. But then, you have the Judges ruling against them, even when the pro se litigants should win these cases. Even if it is an attorney, they are losing when they should be winning.
There is unfairness, just so the banks can foreclose. These litigants are not claiming that they did not take out a loan, or that they did not agree to a debt. They are arguing that it is illegal to forge documents to enforce a loan. The courts are not agreeing. If that is the way it is going to be, they need to open up the jails and let the forgers out of jail. It is a true dilemma. You see the Burger King Kids on 60 Minutes laughing about what they have done, getting paid ten dollars an hour to forge signatures. We read deposition after deposition with attorneys at lawfirms admitting to what is going on, and no one does anything about it.
Why?
[quote=“Dinsdale, post:16, topic:499597”]
In the area of law I practice, in federal court, pro se litigants are rarely successful. In most cases, the fact that they are unable to attracte a lawyer says a lot about the merits of their case (fees are contingent upon their prevailing).
QUOTE]
I don’t know which state you are in, but in Georgia the attorneys no longer take cases on contingency. It is like pulling teeth. Then you have several newer laws, that can request attorneys fees on grounds that border ridiculous, and sanctions against attorneys for almost nothing. Apparently they are attempting to curtail the numerous lawsuits being filed, but there must be a better way to do it.
Many instances, it is the courts themselves that are causing more pro se litigants into the courts.
[quote=“Nootkabear, post:38, topic:499597”]
Canada generally frowns on contingency fees; it is common for the losing party to pay the legal expenses of the winning party. I think that’s a good system, it custs down on vexacious lawsuits. (As does universal health care - when there’s no medical bills to argue over, a lot of lawsuits go away. Plus it’s harder to get damages for intangible losses like pain and suffering.) I recall a few years ago a class action lawsuit failed to get off the ground when the group could not come up with a bond to cover the oppoent’s legal fees in the event of the loss, and could not persuade the judge to waive the option. IIRC that aspect was dependent on what the judge deeemed the liklihood of success.
I am currently involved in a case of discrimination which I have filed Pro Se. I have researched over 300 Pro Se cases here in Indiana and have yet to find even one where the Pro Se Litigant prevailed in Superior or Circuit Court (granted 300 is just a small sampling, but it has been the best I can do). I have also ask every (so called) Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, every Judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals, and have written to over 300 judges asking the same question. Can you show me any cases where a Pro Se Litigant prevailed in Circuit or Superior Court where the opposing side was represented by an attorney? So far I have not recieved a single response.
I believe that Judges are biased against Pro Se Litigants. In the current case I am trying to handle I have followed every rule to the best of my ability, but the Judge (David A. Shaheed, Marion County Superior Court 1) has ignored almost every motion I have filed (he didn’t rule against them, he just didn’t bother to address them at all). However, every motion filed by the attorney for the opposing side has been granted EX PARTE, the Judge didn’t even give me time to respond he just RUBBER STAMPED the attorneys motions and granted them. Recently, the opposing attorney (Mr. Joshua Hague) filed a motion and didn’t even bother to follow the rules — needless to say Shaheed didn’t even bother to read his motion he just granted his moiton, before I even had a chance to mail a repsonse. According to the Marion County Rules, a judge is required to give the other side no less than 15 days to respond, he signed the order within 3 days (so much for following the rules).
It is criminal the way Pro Se Litigants are treated by the courts. The claim to support Pro Se Litigants, but that is nothing more than double talk. I will be taking this case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, on the grounds that the way Pro Se Litigants are treated is a violation of their Constitutional Rights.
Phillip Gray