Comments on: Oprah’s Big Take? http://popsquire.com/entertainment-litigation/oprahs-big-take/ where pop culture and law collide... Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:37:03 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: a lawyer http://popsquire.com/entertainment-litigation/oprahs-big-take/comment-page-1/#comment-207 a lawyer Fri, 30 May 2008 00:49:30 +0000 http://popsquire.com/?p=336#comment-207 Joseph Delgado's perspective about the prospect of success by pro se litigants is way, way off the mark from the way this plays out in reality. Pro se's probably get dismissed on technical or legal grounds 90% of the time. Of the he 10% that might actually survive on their merits, I would be shocked to find that even a full 1% actually prevailed on the merits of the claim, or even long enough to extract a settlement from the opposition. Don't take my word for it: ook at the cases. Pro se = u lose. Its essentially a sure thing. Joseph Delgado’s perspective about the prospect of success by pro se litigants is way, way off the mark from the way this plays out in reality. Pro se’s probably get dismissed on technical or legal grounds 90% of the time. Of the he 10% that might actually survive on their merits, I would be shocked to find that even a full 1% actually prevailed on the merits of the claim, or even long enough to extract a settlement from the opposition. Don’t take my word for it: ook at the cases. Pro se = u lose. Its essentially a sure thing.

]]> By: Joseph Delgado http://popsquire.com/entertainment-litigation/oprahs-big-take/comment-page-1/#comment-206 Joseph Delgado Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:34:03 +0000 http://popsquire.com/?p=336#comment-206 Dear Pop Squire: I came across your posting, thanks to a Google Alert. This is a very interesting concept you have here, by the way. I wanted to comment on your remarks regarding pro se litigation. If you don’t mind me saying so, I think it is inaccurate to label self-representation as a “recipe for disaster” and that self-litigants “often will see defeat.” While I would agree with you that self-litigation in this country is a difficult task (worse in some jurisdictions than others, to be sure), pro se litigants do score some very prominent wins. In fact, I would go as far as saying that in the past five years or so, the art of self-litigation has been more successful that it ever has. I could site many instances, but the one that just recently came across my desk which, in my opinion, would easily drop the jaw of most cynics, is the story of Mr. Harold J. Stewart, a forty-two year-old high school drop out who defended himself, without an attorney, against a MURDER CHARGE in Prince George County, Maryland…. TWICE. Here is the Washington Post link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031603010.html). I am not saying that all experiences of self-representation end up with the pro se litigant riding upon the horse of justice towards a beautiful sunset. However, despite being an interesting and informative piece, I think including not one, but two derogatory remarks regarding self-representation is a bit harsh. I think it is important for your readers to understand that self-representation, while it does come with some risks (many people I know who have hired attorneys will tell you the same thing about hiring attorneys), it can be a successful option to hiring an attorney. Labels like “defeat” and “disastrous” are far less likely to be the result of contemporary pro se litigation than it used to be. Truth be told, “attorney misconduct” and “legal malpractice” are terms which are increasingly, and sadly, associated with the modern day litigation landscape. Thank you for letting me have my say. Again, I do like your “Pop Squire” concept. Best regards. Joseph L. Delgado P.U.L.S.E. Dear Pop Squire:

I came across your posting, thanks to a Google Alert. This is a very interesting concept you have here, by the way.

I wanted to comment on your remarks regarding pro se litigation. If you don’t mind me saying so, I think it is inaccurate to label self-representation as a “recipe for disaster” and that self-litigants “often will see defeat.”

While I would agree with you that self-litigation in this country is a difficult task (worse in some jurisdictions than others, to be sure), pro se litigants do score some very prominent wins. In fact, I would go as far as saying that in the past five years or so, the art of self-litigation has been more successful that it ever has. I could site many instances, but the one that just recently came across my desk which, in my opinion, would easily drop the jaw of most cynics, is the story of Mr. Harold J. Stewart, a forty-two year-old high school drop out who defended himself, without an attorney, against a MURDER CHARGE in Prince George County, Maryland…. TWICE. Here is the Washington Post link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031603010.html).

I am not saying that all experiences of self-representation end up with the pro se litigant riding upon the horse of justice towards a beautiful sunset. However, despite being an interesting and informative piece, I think including not one, but two derogatory remarks regarding self-representation is a bit harsh. I think it is important for your readers to understand that self-representation, while it does come with some risks (many people I know who have hired attorneys will tell you the same thing about hiring attorneys), it can be a successful option to hiring an attorney. Labels like “defeat” and “disastrous” are far less likely to be the result of contemporary pro se litigation than it used to be. Truth be told, “attorney misconduct” and “legal malpractice” are terms which are increasingly, and sadly, associated with the modern day litigation landscape.

Thank you for letting me have my say. Again, I do like your “Pop Squire” concept. Best regards.

Joseph L. Delgado
P.U.L.S.E.

]]>