WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT, REPRESENTING YOURSELF

As you know, or should know by now, I am a self represented party.  But I wasn't always a self represented party.  To start with, like everyone else, I had a lawyer.  The entire legal process totally frightened me and when it came to Courtrooms, I was afraid of my own shadow. 

So why did I end up representing myself?  It was pretty clear after a few months with my first lawyer that there was a really bad attitude out there regarding my case, and the attitude kept on going with each successive lawyer I called upon. 

My initial thought had been, if one lawyer is bad, just move on to a different one and start with a fresh perspective.  Unfortunately, that was not such a great idea.  If I had it to do over again, I would have stuck to the first idiot lawyer.  The problem is that divorce attorneys in the State of Connecticut are in a very specialized field.  Most of these folks have known each other for a long time and they have arrangements with each other regarding how they are going to interact.  I've even heard that cases are decided within the first few weeks that a party files. 

Under these circumstances, no matter what you want in your divorce, if you have fired your first attorney because you didn't like his management of the case, watch out, because you can be sure the second attorney has spoken to the first attorney, gotten the low down on your case and plans on handling your divorce exactly the way the first attorney intended to handle it.  And the same goes on down the line. 

This is true no matter what wonderful stories they tell you in the first few meetings before they get a check from you.  When you hit the third attorney, he will speak to the first and second attorney and keep on with the program. Except the likelihood is that the third and later attorneys will be more threatening and intolerant because the fact that you've had multiple attorneys weakens your position in court and makes you far more vulnerable. 

Many attorneys have a rule that they will not handle a divorce case where there have been more than a few attorneys involved. 

I have to say I would not recommend becoming a self represented party prior to judgment.  There are too many technical issues involved that most of us would have no way of knowing.  Even now I am discovering parts of the stipulations attorneys made on my behalf at the time and coming to understand more clearly how important it was that those parts were incorporated in the agreements.  Yes, these attorneys failed when it came to important parts of my case, but the situation could have been much worse.  

So, prior to judgment it made sense to have an attorney representing me, but post judgement I was smart to stand up and represent myself.  The primary reason for that, of course, is that it saves you a whole lot of money.

Otherwise, I will agree that it is hard to come in as a self represented party because the Court System is clearly hostile to people who represent themselves and often hold them up to a higher standard.  Further, judges often jerk around self represented parties, making up rules that don't exist, denying self represented litigants their constitutional rights and their right to due process without blinking an eyelid.  I have often had to tolerate personal attacks on my character from judges, all of which was entirely unjustified.  I would also say that the Court usually rules against me whenever I bring forward a motion. 

On the other hand, I'm not sure that they wouldn't have ruled against me with or without a lawyer, simply because if you are the oppressed party in a case, it's generally going to stay that way unless you can somehow change the dynamic.  Let me know if you figure that out. 

The most difficult part of representing myself was the absolute sheer terror I experienced taking on the job.  My blood pressure shot up to the roof just stepping foot in the courtroom, all tribute to the fact that there is nothing worse than getting yourself stuck in a situation where you simply don't entirely know what the rules of the game are and yet the stakes are extremely high.  Plus, you have a full audience audience of other litigants sitting there behind you watching you make a fool of yourself when you make mistakes. 

I have to say that my first year or so as a self represented party I spent most of the time apologizing to the judge for every mistake I thought I'd made, real or not.  But it got better as I learned how to handle myself better with each of my successive appearances in the courtroom.

The down side of representing yourself is how you can be manipulated since you don't know all the rules, how you can be the focus of the Court's hostility, and how often the Court will rule against you simply because you have the nerve to represent yourself. 

On the other hand, the upside of representing yourself is the fact that you no long have to sit silently taking shit.  Finally, you can speak your mind on the issues that arise.  You can also behave with dignity and self respect no matter what the Court says to you or about you, and by your merely behaving in a proper manner, you can demonstrate decisively that the Court is simply wrong about you. 

Finally, and yes, it doesn't happen all the time, but you can present case law and quote the Practice Book, and bring forward quotations from the Connecticut General Statutes to prove that, legally speaking, your position is solidly the correct one, and if they rule against you, they appear foolish that they have to break the law in an attempt to break you. 

And, this truly does happen no matter how down I get in my discussions on this blog, every once and a while your logic and your presentation of the legal argument is simply unassailable, and the Court will rule in your favor, or, at the very least, refrain from trashing you altogether as it would have liked. 

Sometimes, by the time a litigant in a high conflict divorce goes self represented, the game is over and you have pretty much lost, so what we are talking about often, but not all the time, is more of a moral victory than anything else.  It's about not walking away from the field until you've had your say. 

There is that old Roman prayer, "Oh Great Jove, you may sink me or you may save me, but I will keep my rudder true."  In this case, you go with the knowledge that you kept your rudder true no matter the outcome.  Even if you have lost, there is an immense satisfaction to that, a satisfaction that only comes from being a self represented party and having the chance to speak for yourself. 

And there is always the possibility that your arguments may not fall on deaf ears and that you will be able to sway the Court in your favor. 

Ultimately, I choose to represent myself in order to have that opportunity.  And, also, the bottom line is, no one is  as convinced of the justness of my own cause as I am, no one speaks with as much intensity and conviction, no one can advocate for his or her own client as passionately as a self represented party, and, in a legal system shot through with corruption and sleeziness, there is no one you can trust as much as yourself. 

When you come to that realization, as far as I am concerned, that's when the time is right to decide to represent yourself and go for it.  Thoughts anyone?!?