Representing Yourself Isn’t Always a Bad Idea

Many people believe that it is never a good idea to represent yourself in court. And, usually, they’re right. Exceptions to this rule occur all the time, however. People do represent themselves in court, and they sometimes win against experienced lawyers. Of course, this is often because they had rock-solid legal cases, with the law and facts obviously on their side. In closer cases, it would be much more difficult for a non-lawyer to prevail.

Every once in a while, we hear about the legal equivalent of a David and Goliath story. According to the ABA Journal (also seen here and here), a couple who ran a small business went up against Toyota, and their top-shelf lawyers, and won (opinion).

Even more impressive, they handled most of the trial by themselves (where they lost), but appealed and ended up winning in the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeal. It’s important to note that these people went into this lawsuit with a lawyer, but the legal fees became too much for them, so they decided to go it alone. It’s telling that the people who won a lawsuit representing themselves were smart enough to not assume that they didn’t need a lawyer.

The case involved a trademark dispute with Toyota over its Lexus brand. A married couple went into business together as car brokers, which help people who are looking for a specific car find that car for the best price. They specialized in helping people buy Lexus models, and used the term “Lexus” in their domain names and advertising. However, they simply used the “Lexus” trademark to describe the business they’re in, rather than to identify their business. They used terms like “buy a Lexus” or “find a Lexus” in the domain names for their websites, and did nothing to suggest that they are affiliated with Lexus.

And because trademark law only protects names and logos to the extent that they identify a business, rather than describing the service the business provides, the couple won. Nonetheless, intellectual property law is, by its nature, extremely complex and abstract. It’s sometimes difficult for some lawyers to wrap their heads around the concepts, so the fact that non-lawyers won an appeal in an IP case is extremely impressive.

There are many reasons why a person might choose to represent themselves in a major civil or criminal case.

One reason is simple narcissism, and it’s the one you probably associate most closely with people who represent themselves. Some people simply think that they’re better than any lawyer out there, and that their case is so important that they can’t trust it with anyone else but themselves. This is sometimes seen in criminal cases, owing to the very low legal standard for allowing a person to proceed pro se.

In order to represent yourself, you simply need to prove that you’re mentally competent to stand trial. As one commenter put it, if a person can tell the difference between the judge and a cantaloupe, he’s entitled to represent himself. This sometimes leads to results that would be funny if they weren’t so embarrassing. Given that you’re constitutionally entitled to a court-appointed attorney in criminal cases, it’s hard to imagine what goes through somebody’s head when they decide that this is a good idea.

So, narcissism is a bad reason to represent yourself. Are there any good reasons?

Well, there are some proceedings, such as small claims court in many states, where you aren’t even allowed to bring an attorney, and the rules governing those courts are designed to be easy for laypersons to understand. Going pro se here is obviously not a bad idea – it’s sometimes your only option.

But what about most other civil cases, where neither party is entitled to a court-appointed lawyer, but where having a lawyer is highly desirable, like the case described here? Well, it depends. If relatively little money is at stake, it’s entirely possible that the cost of a lawyer might exceed the maximum amount a plaintiff can recover, or the maximum amount a defendant can be forced to pay. In such a case, it might just be a good idea to settle. Failing that, representing yourself might be an option, if not the only option.

In this case, the defendants were facing a lawsuit which, if successful, would have crippled their ability to market their business. They recognized that the stakes were high enough to justify hiring an attorney, which is a good indication that they were smart enough to represent themselves (it takes a good deal of intelligence and judgment to recognize that there are things you don’t know). However, the fees simply became too high for them to retain their lawyer, and they apparently couldn’t find a cheaper one. However, that didn’t change the fact that this lawsuit could have crippled their business, so they put in the time learning the relevant law, and gave it their best shot.

It should be noted that, given the facts, the law was pretty squarely on their side, which likely made their job quite a bit easier, but this was still no easy feat.

So, what does this mean for prospective pro se litigants? For one thing, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s rarely a good idea to represent yourself in court. These particular defendants, according to all accounts, put in a huge amount of work learning the relevant law, probably with the help of friends and family.

While stories like this certainly are uplifting and inspirational (if you’re a total law geek, anyway), they aren’t all that common. When all is said and done, in any legal proceeding, it’s better to have a lawyer than to not have one, all other things being equal.

By: Rusty Shackleford