Let me say up front I believe in the right to represent oneself in court. It’s called pro se. But while proceeding pro se might be your right, I think it’s a dangerous idea, and here’s why (PDF):

Jimmie Reaves sued his employer alleging employment discrimination under Title VII. He represented himself. The district court dismissed for jurisdictional reasons. Mr. Reaves failed to address that fact in his informal brief on appeal. And thus, the Court of Appeals had no choice but to affirm the dismissal. Result: Mr. Reaves is out of luck, completely.

Did he have a cause of action? Should he have prevailed? Did the District Court make a mistake? Maybe; possible; it’s been known to happen. But we’ll never know because Mr. Reaves, pro se, won’t get a shot to argue it.

Note that the court calls it his “informal brief” - a court won’t ignore a filing from a pro se litigant just because it’s not in proper formal format according to the appellate rules. Pro se litigants, in fact, get a lot of leeway. But that leeway never extends to basic legal requirements such as the requirement that an appellant address a grounds for the court’s decision below, or be deemed to have waived the argument. And the requirement that a jurisdictional flaw will end the case pretty darned quickly.

Lawyers get a lot of flak for high fees but remember, they earn them - this law stuff isn’t easy.

Technorati Tags: title vii, pro se litigants

Powered by ScribeFire.