Law Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Where do pros se litigants most often fail? Is it because of ignorance of legal protocols? Is it because they use overly aggressive tactics that most lawyers wouldn't use? Is it because they failed to prove their case, when a competent lawyer might have succeeded?
This question was inspired by one of the the answers to another one.
Most pro se litigants fail in the court procedure area. There are many intricacies about what must be completed by when.
Determining jurisdiction can take a very long time, especially personal jurisdiction. These things set back cases repeatedly.
Additionally, many pro se litigants fail a 12(b)(6) motion. This means the other side files a motion saying that the opposing party failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Typically, a pro se litigant fails to state with specificity each element of a claim and how the parties met each element.
If the litigant does not know how to remedy the situation, it will not succeed. Most judges in small claims overlook procedural deficiencies so long as they are not too burdensome on the opposing party.
If one is unsure how to proceed, contact an attorney.
This article cites Justice Stevens in Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 U.S. 152 (2000) —
Our experience has taught us that “a pro se defense is usually a bad defense, particularly when compared to a defense provided by an experienced criminal defense attorney.”10
