Pro Se Suits No Picnic for Defense Lawyers Marisa Kendall, The Recorder July 25, 2014 | 4 Comments share share on linkedin Facebook share on twitter share on google+ Share With Email Send Thank you for sharing! Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided. print reprints It's no secret that certain plaintiffs lawyers make litigators sweat. But even more troubling can be seeing two anxiety-producing words: pro se. VIEW COMMENTS ( 4 ) ADD COMMENT What's being said Sign In Terms & Conditions Kyung Trotter Aug 05, 2014 I agree with "attorney". If the cases are without merit, then then why are the big corporations sending in the big guns to "crush" the Pro Se litigant? I‘m a paralegal. Give me a night‘s sleep and I could "crush" a meritless claim. What a way to portray those who can‘t afford counsel- like some kind of pesky rodents. Christine Konar Aug 02, 2014 Great to see these comments. I‘m a Pro se and lack in legal knowledge, particularly procedure, which doesn‘t mean I do not have a strong case. I have watched as attorneys are "unjustly enriched" just by defending the indefensible. My case is against New Century and it is compelling, where I have no choice but to handle it myself. No lawyer will take it.... attorney Aug 01, 2014 I agree completely with the previous comment. I love how this article portrays pro se lawsuits as a nuisance to be "crushed." If these lawsuits are such garbage, then why do the companies feel the need to fight them by paying large law firms to defend? The corporate-loving legal culture in this country is truly out of control and, frankly, a shame. Ian Lounsbury Jul 31, 2014 I would take exception to the foundations on which this article is set. The "pro se" arrives before the Court with (usually; admittedly not with such Facebook-type issues) a serious grievance against the defendant, usually a large corporation. That entity in turn has integrated policies within the corporation that are guaranteed to incite outrage, hence litigation. the corporation then attempts to cut internal costs by paying low wages to "customer-support" persons, and you end up with unpolished louts being arrogant towards individual consumers. That is absolutely guaranteed to bring on a lawsuit. If you want to avoid lawsuits, then start by installing and rigorously enforcing internally a set of scrupulously fair policies. Then hire competent people with some empathy, provide rigorous ethics training, and pay them well. Nobody sues a company that is decent towards its customers and makes sure that problems are quickly addressed. I have "taken on" as advocate, typically pro-bono, a number of these suits even after they are well advanced and a complete morass. Usually, settlement is for a minor number. Invariably, it is defense counsel that is milking the job and running up their clients‘ tab, when an apology - the most important part - and some gesture at restitution would resolve the conflict. In my view, defense counsel that is getting paid serious money by large corporate clients are making bad situations worse, by even refusing to entertain any settlement of the conflict. They know that their clients have deep pockets and will pay their bills. I suggest these attorneys are not doing anyone a favor, and are derelict in their duties towards their clients. Just because your client is rich is no excuse for you to feed off his wallet in order to pay your own bills. Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here. Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202664746695 Send Thank you! This article's comments will be reviewed.