How to be Your Own Lawyer in a Non-Criminal Case in the United States of America

HOW TO BE YOUR OWN LAWYER IN A NON-CRIMINAL CASE IN THE USA

By Silas Flint

Published by Silas Flint at Smashwords

Copyright 2013 Silas Flint

Discover other titles by Silas Flint at Smashwords.com

Cover art by William Leroy Jacobs, 1912, Now Sir, remember you are under oath …

This book may not be reproduced, copied or distributed without being purchased. Each recipient of this book is obligated to purchase his own copy. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

CHAPTER TWO: How Lawyers Think

CHAPTER THREE: Just What is a Legal Claim, Anyway?

CHAPTER FOUR: Where to Research

CHAPTER FIVE: How Court Cases Work (Part One - A General Overview)

CHAPTER SIX: How Court Cases Work (Part Two - an Example of a Lawsuit)

CHAPTER SEVEN: How Court Cases Work (Part Three - Some of the Finer Details)

CHAPTER EIGHT: Bankruptcy

CHAPTER NINE: Collections

CHAPTER TEN: Contracts

CHAPTER ELEVEN: Estate Planning/Probate

CHAPTER TWELVE: Family Law

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Homeowners Associations

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Immigration

CHAPTER FIFTEEN: Labor/Employment

CHAPTER SIXTEEN: Landlord/Tenant

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: Partnerships and Corporations

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: Personl Injury and Torts

CHAPTER NINETEEN: Real Estate

CHAPTER TWENTY: State and Local (Municipal)

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE: Conclusion

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

Because you are reading this I assume you are involved in a civil lawsuit and either cannot afford an attorney, or don't want to pay for one. If you can't afford one--be grateful. If you can afford one but don't want to pay for one--good for you. In either case, rest assured that you can handle this matter yourself. All it takes is time, confidence, time, effort, time and persistence. So if you have both sufficient time to work on your case and the bullheadedness to stick to it, proceed. If not, start hitting up your distant relations for the funds to pay for an attorney.

This book is divided into two sections. First in chapters 1 through 7 is a general discussion of principles that apply in virtually all civil lawsuits. Here you will find the key to success in almost every lawsuit. This key is summed up by one word--research. Here you will also find a guide to figuring out the strange way things are done in court, and how your lawsuit will proceed. Finally, here you will also find some ideas about how to artfully handle dealing with the attorney on the other side of the case.

The second section of the book in chapters 8 through 21 is devoted to specific areas of law, such as family law, real estate, foreclosures, personal injury, collections, etc. This part of the book will provide some specifics in each area of the law. Of course, bear in mind that we live in a country having 50 states, and each state has its own set of laws on each of these topic areas. Therefore, once again your ultimate key to success is individualized research pertaining to your state law in your case, dealing with your facts. This section is merely a general overview of specific areas of the law, to help you save time in your own individualized research by providing a few basics to start with.

Please note that this book does not deal with criminal law. If you try to apply the general principles presented here to a criminal case, it may not work. Our criminal justice system is a unique animal that shares a few similarities with civil lawsuits, but is often more different than similar. However, if you are involved in a criminal case take heart--my experience is that criminal cases are usually not as complex and difficult to deal with as civil ones. So for you involved in a criminal case I have only word of advice--research. If you put in the time researching, you will find what you need to know. Because the key to success in a criminal case as well as a civil one is the same--good, solid research. And you will gain some valuable insights into research by continuing to read this volume.

And now a word about me. Before reading further you probably want to make sure I'm not just a legal secretary with time on my hands who decided to write a book about the silliness she observed in the attorneys she's worked for. Rest assured I am not a legal secretary. I have practiced in civil litigation for over ten years. I have handled every one of the cases described in part two of this book, for real clients with real problems. I know somewhat of what you're going through, and more specifically, I know what an attorney is likely to tell you if you go to one.

And now, just to prove that I'm a real attorney, let me provide a disclaimer. A disclaimer of this kind is what any attorney will do in writing a book of this sort, since it allows me to blissfully spew my advice, while throwing all the responsibility for your case back on you. Therefore, here's the disclaimer: Please be advised that the information you are reading in this book is only a guide, and is not intended as legal advice that will solve your specific case or fully satisfy your individual needs. Please understand that if you apply the principles in this book, you do so at your own risk and I am not responsible for the outcome. So no finger pointing, ok? If you have any doubt or concern with this stuff, you may find it beneficial (but costly) to consult with an attorney. Let's just hope that if you do, he knows what he's talking about (NOTE: He will always pretend to know what he's talking about, so there's really no way for you to know for sure if he really does).

Now let's get to work. And just in case you missed my most important message from above, the key to success in your case is research. Drill that into your mind. If you put forth the time and effort to research your case, I believe you will do well in your case. Notice I said you would do well--not that you would win. Unlike the dream world of Perry Mason, even the best attorneys do not win all their cases. Truth is, even the best attorneys usually have a win/loss ratio of no better than about 70%. And that's doing exceptionally well. The majority of attorneys hover around the 50% win/loss mark when all is said and done. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. So you may not win your case. But if you will do your research, I believe you will at least not look like a fool while the case drags on, and the possibility you might win (or at least not lose too badly) will increase by about 500%.

The truth is, even many attorneys fail to realize that research is the key to success. I have been continuously surprised at how poorly many opposing attorneys conduct their research. They get away with it only where the attorney they are facing also fails to research. In my career, that is something I have vowed to never do.

CHAPTER TWO: How Lawyers Think

You may wonder why I am starting with this as the first chapter. The answer is simple. In your case you are probably facing a lawyer who is attempting to intimidate you by his mere presence, so you need to understand what he is thinking. I realize that some readers of this book are not facing an attorney on the other side of the case yet--but you might be, at some point in the future. Therefore, you need to understand a few things about your opposition in order to have the confidence to proceed. In short, you need to have a foundation of confidence that you can do well in your case, even though you will be facing an 'experienced' attorney. And the best way to gain this confidence is to understand just how 'experienced' the attorney you are facing really is.

Most law students are surprised when they start law school that the main thing they are expected to do is not to merely memorize lengthy legal codes. Rather, as law students are repeatedly told, the main purpose of their legal education in law school is not to memorize the law--it is to learn how to 'think like a lawyer.' So they take broad subjects such as 'Contracts,' or 'Property,' or 'Torts' to gain a general understand of general principles. While they memorize these principles to some degree, later when they study for the bar exam they usually have to take a specialized training course which they pay for separately (and is not cheap!) which is NOT part of their law school, but which is solely and specifically designed to help them remember and fully memorize the rules needed to pass the bar exam in their state. In short, law school is more to train students to 'think like a lawyer' than to memorize the law.

To 'think like a lawyer' is a fairly simple concept. At its core, it means unemotional analysis based on what are usually very simple legal rules applied to simple facts. Let me give you an example from experience. A person walks out of a grocery store with a cart full of food. After putting their bags in their car, they return the shopping cart to the 'cart coral' in the parking lot. While leaving the 'cart coral,' they trip over a bolt sticking up from the coral, much higher than it should be sticking up. They fall and are injured, requiring expensive surgery. They know they have a claim, but because they are unsure of all the fine nuances of law, they take their case to an attorney. The good news is their particular claim is one of the rare ones that attorneys are willing to handle on 'contingency,' or in other words, without being paid $250 an hour to work on it. The bad news is the REASON attorneys are willing to take such a case on contingency--they will pocket 30 to 40% of whatever the injured person recovers for their accident. As you can see, if the recovery is a million dollars, that's quite a pocketful.

A lawyer who is presented with such a case will immediately apply his 'think like a lawyer' training from law school. He analyzes a few simple things from his Torts training. Where did the accident occur? Was it on store property? Did the store have a duty to keep customers safe in this parking area? Did it have warning signs? Was it well lit or dark? Was the bolt sticking up so high it truly presented a risk? Did the injured person watch where they were going? How expensive was the surgery?

Do you see anything unusual in these questions? No. They are the same questions you would ask as a nonlawyer if you were to 'think like a lawyer' and analyze the merits of the case, trying to balance its good points against its bad ones. The only advantage the lawyer has is that he had to memorize a bunch of legal rules about this type of case in order to pass his bar exam. In other words, he applies the logical questions anyone would ask against the rules he memorized, to see how strong the case is 'legally.' But