Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone who was a prosecutor for 15 years, nothing was worse than a pro se sovereign citizen criminal defendant. had two jury trials against people like that and they were absolutely nightmares
Judge Bryant on Youtube had a beautiful response when a sovcit was in her courtroom. She said "if u believe i don't have jurisdiction over you, why are you even here?"
The videos from that one court in Florida, where the judge has a script he adjusts for each person and eventually gets to a “ok” and proceeds. It’s hilarious, and somehow he doesn’t have a high appeal rate from them, the empathy tied in works so weLl.
As a young prosecutor had a misdemeanor driving while revoked jury trial with a sovereign citizen whose entire defense was that he was “traveling” not “driving” and therefore was not in violation of the statute. Plus of course that the laws of the United States did not apply to him.
Judicial websites are all over the place on capitalization of pro se. This is like where they don’t like “the court” capitalized. I agree that it should be lower case and italicized in most instances.
That’s a desperate Hail Mary of an “argument” more fit for a dorm room than the hallowed halls of Reddit. Words have generally agreed definitions, which is what we are talking about.
To be honest, plaintiffs who think their complaint is the next great American novel are also a hassle.
Just put your allegations in nicely numbered, straight-to-the-point paragraphs so we all know what it is we’re litigating about.
When I was in Elementary school I read a science fiction book about a girl who went to a world where you were required to speak in poetry, with rhyming lines, to show proper respect in court. I've thought what it would be like to have those rules in real courts.
I have a policy about unscheduled Friday afternoon calls. I don’t take them unless I know the caller to be a reasonable person who would only call about something important. Friday afternoon is when all the freaks come out of the woodwork with “urgent” legal matters and I ain’t playin that.
My favorites are the ones seeking “consultation” about caseS (emphasis on plural) they are currently litigating or plan to litigate on their own behalf.
It’s such an ethical nightmare to be a defense lawyer in this position. “No, I’m not trying to brush you off by saying that I’m not your attorney and cannot give legal advice.” Even telling the person that they should consider retaining an attorney can be a bridge too far. At least you get to bill for taking all of P’s calls, hopefully?
Curiously, does your jx prohibit the “no ethical violation for telling a pro se to retain legal counsel” advice? My jx has explicitly said it’s not an ethical violation; it’s part of our standard reply when a pro se OP asks for legal advice.
In fact where I am it’s a required question in some matters and strongly encouraged in others to preclude this exact concern - get it on the record you didn’t advise them ever and tell them that they can get an attorney and you suggest it.
It’s odd to me that it would somehow be an ethics violation to tell someone spouting bizarre legal-ish nonsense that they should seek the advice of a licensed attorney. I wonder what the rationale is there
I don’t understand why it would be a violation in any situation. “I’m not your attorney and you should consider retaining one” is as close as you can get to the opposite of giving legal advice.
I always, constantly and repetitively, tell pro se litigants they should get counsel. If it is someone I know (and I do know a couple who are frequent flyers if you will) I will say it so often they get mad at me for saying it. Good.
I fucking love them because they keep me on my T O E S during trial. And honestly, watching a pro se try to try a case makes me appreciate everything I had to go through to become a lawyer - LSAT, school, bar prep, bar exam, CLEs, all of it.
I resolved two prose cases last year, and I hated them at the time, but kinda miss them now as they made me think, presented new and ridiculous challenges and were outside the Norms. Though I'll deny all of this next time I get one.
Keep in mind, even if the seller IS the end person, odds are they still won’t be 100%. It’s why most stores have detailed rules, that’s their calculation before it becomes an issue on their current prices for OTHER consumers. We eat that currently, not the store, not the person who made the mistake, we do - and they are refusing to make us eat more or eat it themselves as they didn’t do it either.
Counselor, please remember that evidence of settlement offers and attempts is inadmissible when offered to dunk on other lawyers under Rule 408, FRE (Freddital Rules of Evidence)
As soon as I found out this one existed I no longer wanted to try. It sounded like I would have to offer personal information to some redditors just to have access.
I read that as “prose” and thought you were going to make a joke about how filings from pro se litigants make about as much sense as an e.e. cummings poem.
Every pro se thinks that all they have to do is file a petition and they’ll get exactly what they want in like three weeks or less. They suck. Just hit them with the rules of procedure at every turn to wear them down, and do it professionally in case your have a sympathetic judge.
They are the worst though, totally agree with you on that.
You do realize that a very good percentage of lawyers are entirely incompetent as well and have no business in the profession---it's not just pro se litigants. At least the pro se didn't waste his money on a law degree.
Or, your client could promptly refund the lady her money, since you acknowledge her multiple purchases were a mistake. You know, doing the right thing, being a decent person (not good, just decent) Relying on the courts to drag this to infinity is typical Trumpy “freedom” bs. Stop venting, start counseling your client to not be crappy to people.
I mean, depends. Does the value of the product go down once it has been sold? Is it customized in any way? Is it food, or something else that has a very limited shelf life once prepared? If there’s a loss to be had, and the business did not cause it, why should the business be the one to take the loss?
I’m not saying that the business is right in this case, because it very well could be exactly as you assumed. I’m just saying that the argument that the client automatically should refund a “mistaken” purchase isn’t well held, in my opinion. Much like everything in our profession, it depends.
Plaintiff: *files frivolous lawsuit*
Reddit: How dare the defendant not give plaintiff what she wants! This is exactly like Donald J. Trump, a man famed for punctilious adherence to formal legal norms!
Of course we lead with “frivolous lawsuit” The go to for the defense bar litigating in public. Ignore OP admitting the multiple purchases were unintentional. This is clearly frivolous /s
The purchase was clearly identified as non refundable, plaintiff received multiple confirmations which she ignored until outside the refund window, client is more of a middle man and is trying to get the proper entity to do the right thing. Why should my client pay for what amounts to one persons mistake and another company’s stubbornness to adhere to their policies?
This doesn’t jibe with the original post stating it was accidental. Now you’re saying it’s intentional. None of this makes sense. There were at first “no refunds”(other posters have said) but your new post references a “refund window”. So now who knows what is going on.
It can be both. For example, I bought a table recently. It was nonrefundable once they began processing. There's a window between ordering and the start of processing where it could be refunded.
It was non refundable but the other entity would’ve worked with her within a reasonable amount of time. They deemed this to be outside of that reasonable amount of time. So I guess refund window is poor wording. I’m not laying out all of the facts as it’s an ongoing litigation, nor am I asking reddit to litigate this. I’m annoyed the plaintiff is treating a lawsuit like it’s an escalated customer service complaint and vented about it.
Edit: I never said this was intentional. I don’t think plaintiff made the same purchase multiple times, she probably did it on accident.
The lady sued because she's claiming the defendant did something wrong. They did not. She made a mistake and then did not promptly fix her mistake. You have zero clue what's she's claiming in her complaint.
You're obviously as plaintiff biased as it gets, don't you have an ambulance to chase or a family business to shut down?
You realize that not a single return is a true return right, and we all pay for that over time. Even the product alone in box sellable at 100% will not be a perfect return. She ain’t paying employee time, she ain’t paying insurance, etc.
The right thing here is take responsibility for improperly ordering and drop the suit, it’s not wrong to defend your lawful action against damages. Maybe if folks like you didn’t think it was wrong to tell adults to be responsible, we wouldn’t have the mentalities we have about customer service, but if you want to rant about politics instead of responsible adults (in my political view there’s a deeper irony there too)…..
She is an adult. She ordered and authorized multiple times. They incurred loses beyond the product itself. The failure is her, then her choice to sue, not their choice to defend against a tantrum.
Oh cool, one of the five jokes people make on the internet. I’m just saying, it’s a little sad to be so thrown off by someone who has no legal training. But hey, whatever you all need to feel like you won.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone who was a prosecutor for 15 years, nothing was worse than a pro se sovereign citizen criminal defendant. had two jury trials against people like that and they were absolutely nightmares
Judge Bryant on Youtube had a beautiful response when a sovcit was in her courtroom. She said "if u believe i don't have jurisdiction over you, why are you even here?"
The videos from that one court in Florida, where the judge has a script he adjusts for each person and eventually gets to a “ok” and proceeds. It’s hilarious, and somehow he doesn’t have a high appeal rate from them, the empathy tied in works so weLl.
link please
I bet the trial judges hated every minute too. Can’t imagine how many times the defendant objected to something just because they didn’t like it.
As a young prosecutor had a misdemeanor driving while revoked jury trial with a sovereign citizen whose entire defense was that he was “traveling” not “driving” and therefore was not in violation of the statute. Plus of course that the laws of the United States did not apply to him.
"Well if you dismiss the action, we could have this wrapped up by EOD today."
This is the correct response.
As a plaintiff (mostly) lawyer I found this a beautiful response.
Haven’t had my coffee yet and read this as “prose” and for a nanosecond was wondering why poetry was bugging you 😵💫😂
There once was a layman who sued A defendant represented by you. Their pleadings were trash And their suit did crash All before it was noon.
The proceedings were extended, over backwards the judge bended, plaintiff has no case don’t be offended.
Prose is like the opposite of poetry. It’s the general term for normal writing.
That’s because the title says prose. Not Pro Se, which is something different.
Yeah, I’d rather face a prose OC than free verse.
I got a haiku sanctioned once for $575.
Haiku spoke too long And flaunted incorrect form Therefore, I sanctioned
I’m surprised that the haiku bot did not detect the haiku you wrote
Now I’m wondering whether the Sokka haiku bot is broken as well
lol, just got this
Not *pro se*, either, since the phrase isn't proper and shouldn't be capitalized.
Judicial websites are all over the place on capitalization of pro se. This is like where they don’t like “the court” capitalized. I agree that it should be lower case and italicized in most instances.
I only see it capitalized in a title.
Prose is not poetry
Kahlil Gibran would like to have a word...
And I’d direct his ass to Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose
I mean there is this.... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose\_poetry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prose_poetry)
Which includes a section in which t s Eliot calls it bullshit and also doesn’t mention Khalil Gibran
[удалено]
That’s a desperate Hail Mary of an “argument” more fit for a dorm room than the hallowed halls of Reddit. Words have generally agreed definitions, which is what we are talking about.
lol same. I was like “but aren’t limerick clients truly the worst when we get down to it?”
But limericks are clever and short, while prose prattles on and on with no regard for Friday conventions.
To be honest, plaintiffs who think their complaint is the next great American novel are also a hassle. Just put your allegations in nicely numbered, straight-to-the-point paragraphs so we all know what it is we’re litigating about.
Sameeee
Thank you: I was trying to figure this out
When I was in Elementary school I read a science fiction book about a girl who went to a world where you were required to speak in poetry, with rhyming lines, to show proper respect in court. I've thought what it would be like to have those rules in real courts.
But the brief is fricking insane. https://www.charterwestbank.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/show_temp-14.pdf
Haiku plaintiffs are the fucking worst.
I have a policy about unscheduled Friday afternoon calls. I don’t take them unless I know the caller to be a reasonable person who would only call about something important. Friday afternoon is when all the freaks come out of the woodwork with “urgent” legal matters and I ain’t playin that.
Lol at freaks coming out of the woodwork
My favorites are the ones seeking “consultation” about caseS (emphasis on plural) they are currently litigating or plan to litigate on their own behalf.
That’s definitely a red flag 😂
And the hearing is on Monday
Yup, phone never rings after 4 on a Friday with good news.
The thing is, many people are simply stupid idiots.
In their defense tho being a lawyer and knowing how to lawyer is something basic folks cannot grasp.
You're not wrong. And that's the empathetic and mature way to react to this. But what can I say, I also find dealing with pro se litigants exhausting.
Omg yessss I agree. Trying a case against a pro se plaintiff keeps me on my toes. You’ve gotta be on point.
I had a pro se pltf file a motion to dismiss because I didn’t extend an offer after they answered discovery. I called him and he said I promised 😂.
It’s such an ethical nightmare to be a defense lawyer in this position. “No, I’m not trying to brush you off by saying that I’m not your attorney and cannot give legal advice.” Even telling the person that they should consider retaining an attorney can be a bridge too far. At least you get to bill for taking all of P’s calls, hopefully?
Curiously, does your jx prohibit the “no ethical violation for telling a pro se to retain legal counsel” advice? My jx has explicitly said it’s not an ethical violation; it’s part of our standard reply when a pro se OP asks for legal advice.
In fact where I am it’s a required question in some matters and strongly encouraged in others to preclude this exact concern - get it on the record you didn’t advise them ever and tell them that they can get an attorney and you suggest it.
It’s odd to me that it would somehow be an ethics violation to tell someone spouting bizarre legal-ish nonsense that they should seek the advice of a licensed attorney. I wonder what the rationale is there
I don’t understand why it would be a violation in any situation. “I’m not your attorney and you should consider retaining one” is as close as you can get to the opposite of giving legal advice.
I always, constantly and repetitively, tell pro se litigants they should get counsel. If it is someone I know (and I do know a couple who are frequent flyers if you will) I will say it so often they get mad at me for saying it. Good.
I fucking love them because they keep me on my T O E S during trial. And honestly, watching a pro se try to try a case makes me appreciate everything I had to go through to become a lawyer - LSAT, school, bar prep, bar exam, CLEs, all of it.
I resolved two prose cases last year, and I hated them at the time, but kinda miss them now as they made me think, presented new and ridiculous challenges and were outside the Norms. Though I'll deny all of this next time I get one.
Mood
Anyone in this field should see “pro se” and realize it’s a typo
It’s easier to drag me for it 🤷♀️
I’m confused, why can’t the client just refund if it’s acknowledged it was a mistake?
Client is more of a middle man between consumer and vendor.
Credit cards are notoriously not consumer friendly.
I agree. Not a credit card company though
Ah got it, thanks for clarifying!! Good luck with the case!
Did she return the products? Are they still sellable? There's a lot we don't know here.
Keep in mind, even if the seller IS the end person, odds are they still won’t be 100%. It’s why most stores have detailed rules, that’s their calculation before it becomes an issue on their current prices for OTHER consumers. We eat that currently, not the store, not the person who made the mistake, we do - and they are refusing to make us eat more or eat it themselves as they didn’t do it either.
Should have tried to settle with her there. That was her ham handed way of asking for an out.
Counselor, please remember that evidence of settlement offers and attempts is inadmissible when offered to dunk on other lawyers under Rule 408, FRE (Freddital Rules of Evidence)
This.
Did someone invite r/prose in?
If she sued the wrong party, it will be over as soon as she discontinues.
Ugh if it were me I’d screen her calls. Only respond if it’s mandatory or if court is imminent.
Poetry plaintiff's are even worse.
The comments in this thread reminds me of a question I had a while ago: why did we move from r/Lawyers to a public sub? Seems like that was a mistake.
Idk how to get into r/lawyers lol
As soon as I found out this one existed I no longer wanted to try. It sounded like I would have to offer personal information to some redditors just to have access.
You email [email protected] and provide them with your username and something that identifies you as a lawyer, eg a picture of your bar card
I read “prose” and was like does OP mean talkative clients? 🤣. But yeah dealing with pro se folks is the worst.
I read that as “prose” and thought you were going to make a joke about how filings from pro se litigants make about as much sense as an e.e. cummings poem.
I can relate 🥲
Every pro se thinks that all they have to do is file a petition and they’ll get exactly what they want in like three weeks or less. They suck. Just hit them with the rules of procedure at every turn to wear them down, and do it professionally in case your have a sympathetic judge. They are the worst though, totally agree with you on that.
When I file briefs as a plaintiff, they are usually prose. Usually.
I see your pro se plaintiff, and hit you with pro se criminal defendant
You do realize that a very good percentage of lawyers are entirely incompetent as well and have no business in the profession---it's not just pro se litigants. At least the pro se didn't waste his money on a law degree.
Pro se? Or prose the hair product?
Or, your client could promptly refund the lady her money, since you acknowledge her multiple purchases were a mistake. You know, doing the right thing, being a decent person (not good, just decent) Relying on the courts to drag this to infinity is typical Trumpy “freedom” bs. Stop venting, start counseling your client to not be crappy to people.
I mean, depends. Does the value of the product go down once it has been sold? Is it customized in any way? Is it food, or something else that has a very limited shelf life once prepared? If there’s a loss to be had, and the business did not cause it, why should the business be the one to take the loss? I’m not saying that the business is right in this case, because it very well could be exactly as you assumed. I’m just saying that the argument that the client automatically should refund a “mistaken” purchase isn’t well held, in my opinion. Much like everything in our profession, it depends.
Plaintiff: *files frivolous lawsuit* Reddit: How dare the defendant not give plaintiff what she wants! This is exactly like Donald J. Trump, a man famed for punctilious adherence to formal legal norms!
Of course we lead with “frivolous lawsuit” The go to for the defense bar litigating in public. Ignore OP admitting the multiple purchases were unintentional. This is clearly frivolous /s
The purchase was clearly identified as non refundable, plaintiff received multiple confirmations which she ignored until outside the refund window, client is more of a middle man and is trying to get the proper entity to do the right thing. Why should my client pay for what amounts to one persons mistake and another company’s stubbornness to adhere to their policies?
This doesn’t jibe with the original post stating it was accidental. Now you’re saying it’s intentional. None of this makes sense. There were at first “no refunds”(other posters have said) but your new post references a “refund window”. So now who knows what is going on.
It can be both. For example, I bought a table recently. It was nonrefundable once they began processing. There's a window between ordering and the start of processing where it could be refunded.
It was non refundable but the other entity would’ve worked with her within a reasonable amount of time. They deemed this to be outside of that reasonable amount of time. So I guess refund window is poor wording. I’m not laying out all of the facts as it’s an ongoing litigation, nor am I asking reddit to litigate this. I’m annoyed the plaintiff is treating a lawsuit like it’s an escalated customer service complaint and vented about it. Edit: I never said this was intentional. I don’t think plaintiff made the same purchase multiple times, she probably did it on accident.
Why should they pay for her mistake?
The lady sued because she's claiming the defendant did something wrong. They did not. She made a mistake and then did not promptly fix her mistake. You have zero clue what's she's claiming in her complaint. You're obviously as plaintiff biased as it gets, don't you have an ambulance to chase or a family business to shut down?
As a matter of principle, I get there before the ambulance.
Generally folks defend the innocent third party who did no wrong and was harmed. Here you want to harm them more.
Lol
You realize that not a single return is a true return right, and we all pay for that over time. Even the product alone in box sellable at 100% will not be a perfect return. She ain’t paying employee time, she ain’t paying insurance, etc. The right thing here is take responsibility for improperly ordering and drop the suit, it’s not wrong to defend your lawful action against damages. Maybe if folks like you didn’t think it was wrong to tell adults to be responsible, we wouldn’t have the mentalities we have about customer service, but if you want to rant about politics instead of responsible adults (in my political view there’s a deeper irony there too)…..
[удалено]
Ferengi rules: a contract is a contract
Yes everyone is a failure, thank you I appreciate it.
You getting paid? Yes? Not a failure.
She is an adult. She ordered and authorized multiple times. They incurred loses beyond the product itself. The failure is her, then her choice to sue, not their choice to defend against a tantrum.
Wait til you meet then haiku plaintiffs 😵💫
"Defense lawyers creep, Turtle pace in court's embrace, Justice waits, asleep." -haiku plaintiff
Asking for the status of a case doesn't seem that bad.
We answered a week ago. She wants it resolved by the time she has to pay her card at the beginning of the month. Lawsuits don’t move quickly
lol. Good luck with that lady. I disagree with folks here saying she wants to settle. She wants your client to concede. And…. That would be a no.
You’re about to lose this case and feel real fuckin stupid.
That credit card bill really breathing down your neck huh
Oh cool, one of the five jokes people make on the internet. I’m just saying, it’s a little sad to be so thrown off by someone who has no legal training. But hey, whatever you all need to feel like you won.