Dealing with the Pro Se Opponent

While at the firm, I ran across pro se litigants very rarely, in part because I was not doing as much family law. Now I am running into more and more pro se parties on the other side. I think there are certain rules that need to be communicated to those who want to have themselves for a client:

(1) Rule #1: Do not expect everyone else to do your work for you. It is your job to draft, your job to read what is sent, your job to understand it. If it has legalese in it, go look it up in a legal dictionary. If it quotes a statute, go look it up because most statutes are online for free. If you are not going to hire an attorney, you need to be prepared to put in the work that an attorney would put in because no one is going to do the work for you.

(2) Rule #2: Opposing counsel is not there to do you favors. Just because you think the outcome is wrong does not mean you should call the attorney on the other side and try to change their minds. In fact, the outcome was probably pretty favorable to the attorney's client, and it would be malpractice for the attorney to suddenly take your side. It is the Court you have to convince, not opposing counsel.

(3) Rule #3: Do not call during the height of your emotional outburst. You are not thinking rationally, so it is impossible for the attorney to communicate with you. I get that you are mad, feel like the system failed, feel that Goliath beat David, feel that I used my influence to push things through, but there is nothing I am going to do about it. In fact most of the time opposing counsel will start trying to use a rational argument with the pro se litigant, then give up and resort to either yelling or silence. Silence is my tactic of choice.

(4) Rule #4: Do not lie about something that can be independently verified. Attorneys specialize in paperwork. Chances are the attorney has the paperwork to prove that you are lying. It is also quite possible that the attorney has the credibility with the Court necessary to just show the paperwork.

(5) Rule #5: Read what you sign. You cannot use the defense, "well s/he told me that signing this would make such and such occur." Have you ever considered that the person giving you this advice is going up against you in the matter?

(6) Rule #6: Stop quoting this mysterious "lawyer" who is supposedly reading the paperwork and giving you advice. For one, this person rarely exists. Making up a "lawyer" is not going to cause the lawyer to start questioning his or her capability on a case. If the person does exist, they are probably giving free advice and therefore, not that great of advice. Just because a person has a JD after their name does not mean that they know all the nuances of the area of law you are asking them about. Bankruptcies attorneys may know nothing about family law except what they learned in law school 20 years ago and vice versa. (Same thing goes for doctors too!) Also, if you are not paying them for research, they probably are not researching your issue to find out if what you are saying is correct. Finally, they probably have not heard the whole story because that would probably take a minimum of an hour to tell, and most of us are too busy to give an hour. When you quote the mysterious "lawyer," this is what I am thinking and I am sure other attorneys are thinking the same thing.

(7) Rule #7: Come to Court. I follow the rule that even if a waiver is signed, I give notice of hearings. I also, when the person is not represented by an attorney, try to make that waiver as favorable to the pro se litigant as possible. Why? Because the pro se person never comes to Court, and is always unhappy with what the judge decides because they were not their to tell their side. The State of Texas tells me that when you sign a waiver, I provide you notice, you do not agree with the proposed order, and you do not show, then I can proceed and my client is going to be able to talk about whatever s/he wants to talk about which may or may not result in an order that is less favorable to you than the one I sent to you. The main place this comes up is child support. If there is no agreement, there is going to be child support entered because I am not going to present the evidence as to why child support should not be entered. Doing so might result in my client having a complaint against me, and I am there to represent my client. This can all be avoided if the pro se litigant would just show up to Court.

(8) Rule #8: Dress appropriately. If you are representing yourself, it is probably smart to dress the part. A suit is a good idea. Caring enough to wear a suit gives the appearance of preparation even if you do not know what you are doing. This goes even for clients who are represented by counsel because club attire is not appropriate for Court. Also, undergarments should be worn to Court.

(9) Rule #9: Do not talk back to the Court. It is amazing how disrespectful some pro se litigants are towards the Court. The person in the black robe is not like your mother and father who you could run all over. S/He is not like your teacher at school who was confined to certain discipline methods. S/He can throw you in jail. S/He can take away your access to your children. S/He can fine you money. You had better be nice to the Court!

(10) Rule #10: Since you are not my client, I do not have to talk to you every time you call. This may be more of a personal rule than an across the board rule. I try to be respectful and call you back, but when the conversations are not productive, cost my client money, and start numbering three to four a day, I am going to start ignoring one or two of them. You can correspond with me in writing if you want to get your point across because thirty minutes of ranting or arguing just waste my time. My duty is not to you.

I understand that lawyers are pricey. I truly believe that a citizen can go into court and represent themselves if they are willing to put the time and effort into being an expert on their case. It is probably more advisable to have a lawyer because the law is technical. There is a reason that I had to go to extra school and pay thousands of dollars. If you make the choice to represent yourself, understand that legal work is time consuming and requires research and paperwork. Be willing to put forth the effort so that you are respectful of the Court and opposing counsel. The statutes can be found for free on the Internet so start with those instead of a general legal help site that is not state specific. Whatever you do, if you are going to say that opposing counsel or the Court is wrong, be ready to back it up with statute or evidence following the correct procedure instead of complaining once the order is complete. These are just a few tips for those brave enough to represent themselves so that they do not also represent a fool.

Being Sensitive to Suffering

I have clearly seen throughout my adult life how God usually prepares us to go through the things we go through. I feel like God gives us little warnings before the unexpected happens. Maybe it is more of a benefit of a life of discipline. When we are disciplined enough to be faithful to the study of God's word, we can find ourselves prepared.

I have been going through a 2 Thessalonian precept study. I did not really want to do 2 Thessalonian this spring, but I feel that when the opportunity presents itself, and there are no other ministries that take priority over a Bible study, you should do it. This week's study was over the first chapter. One of the insights I had while studying the first chapter, reading verses on suffering and affliction, and looking up the Greek definitions of the words is that suffering is much deeper than just suffering ridicule for the sake of the gospel. It comes from Christians and non-Christians alike when you are being obedient to God's word. You will take actions that no one understands when you are being obedient. Part of obedience is getting involved in people's lives to the point that when they suffer, you suffer with them. We limit suffering for the sake of the gospel when I think it is a little broader when we are loving our neighbor and getting involved in their lives.

For example, Jesus befriended Mary, Martha and Lazarus. He was involved in their lives. Lazarus got sick and died, and Jesus suffered. He was grieved by the pain of His friends Mary and Martha even though He knew that God would be glorified in Lazarus' resurrection in the end. He was sensitive to their suffering even though He knew the outcome. He ministered to them in their grief. He went through this grief for the sake of the gospel. Ultimately God was glorified.

Yesterday, I received news that my little guy in New Orleans lost almost everything in a fire that completely destroyed their apartment. By completely, I mean that no possession other than a few shoes in the back of the closet seem recognizable. Even though I knew that God would provide for them and that things will probably be better for them in the end, there is still a sensitivity to their suffering that must be shown. It breaks my heart to think of some of the things that they have lost. Some of it can sort of be replaced such as pictures because I have most of the pictures anyway and clothes and toys and books, but there are also those things that cannot be replaced. When you get caught up in someone's life, you have to be willing to suffer with them. You have to be ready to sacrifice something of yourself. You have to be ready to grieve. Even though no one ridiculed my faith or held a gun to my head, I believe that it was a day of suffering for the gospel. If I did not love my little guy and his mother, I would have just thought it was a sad situation, but not allowed it to disrupt my life. Instead, so that God may be glorified, I allowed myself to suffer with them. I could show them love through actions, not just words of comfort. Even better, not too long after I received news of the fire, I received an e-mail from a friend I have not heard from in months on the subject of suffering. God is so good to us!

American Idol 2011 - My Thoughts So Far

I thought after the first week that I would not watch this season. I could not stand Steven Tyler as a judge. Still cannot, which I know puts me in the minority. However, I have been able to look past him and enjoy the season so far. The main reason I was able to look past him - Jordan Dorsey. He was the first featured auditioner for the New Orleans audition. I liked him then, I like him now. Yes, he is diva like, or was portrayed that way during the Hollywood round. However, he is good.

Also, who is this Paul McDonald guy and why do I not know more about him? All of a sudden it is like the producers said, wait a minute, we do not have much footage of this guy and he is going to the top twenty-four, so we had better get something put out there about him. I feel like I need to know more! His voice is mesmerizing, and I know no other way to describe it. I am glad we get to hear more, more, more. Of course he could totally bomb the live show and make me realize why we have not seen much of him.

I was sad to see John Wayne go, only because I thought he looked good in a cowboy hat. I think both cowboys should have stayed and let the guy who cut Jacee out of the group go. I do not care if the guy who shall not be named ends up having the most talent in the universe, I will not vote for him because of how he treated Jacee. He should have done the Jordan thing and left the group if he thought that Jacee was not a fit. My college roommate's little girl called Jacee the chubby Justin Bieber. I think that is fitting! As for the other cowboy, Scotty, I hope I never have to hear that song from him again and that he can now move on to something else!

As far as the girls go, I am not impressed with many. I like the young country chick named Lauren, but then she showed up dressed like cowgirl Barbie (the show's words, not mine). I usually feel this way about the girls at this point in the season, so there is still a chance I will be wowed.

I already have contestants that I cannot stand and make me feel the way Sanjaya made the world feel. I hope they go soon. I fear they will not. Although I agree that the guy's rendition of "God Bless the Child" was good, he has got to go! Nothing else he did was good. End of story. There is also he who must not be named. I also was not impressed like the judges were with Thia Magia or whatever her rhyming name is. I tend to agree more with the voice coach on that one. Her voice has a flatness in it that is just annoying!

Well, I hoped that this year might be the year I break my addiction, but I am hooked instead. I do think that there is a tremendous amount of talent this year. I think that it is going to be hard to forget some of the ones cut if they do come back next year to try out again like the judges seem to want (and the producers too because how can you forget Jacee ... although it will be interesting if his voice changes!). The show seems no better, no worse, which is saying a lot since I do miss Simon. I am glad that the show is finally out of the preliminary stuff and on to the singing competition. Let the real competition begin!