By: Quinn Rickert
It is a puzzling statistic: even when the stakes are incredibly high, a significant number of people choose to step into a courtroom without a lawyer by their side (Liu, Engel, & Chang, 2025). On the surface, the decision to represent oneself—to go pro se—can feel empowering. It speaks to a desire for autonomy, control, and a belief that no one can tell your story better than you can (Farber, 2025). Many people even hire a lawyer not because they think it’s the only way to win, but simply for "peace of mind" (Liu, Engel, & Chang, 2025).
This desire for control is understandable, but it is often based on a critical misunderstanding of what a lawsuit truly is. A legal case is not just about telling your story; it is about navigating a complex, adversarial system with its own language, rituals, and unforgiving rules. The call to represent yourself can be a siren song, luring you toward what seems like an empowered choice, only to crash your case against the rocks of legal procedure.
The Psychological Trap: "My Case is a Slam Dunk"
Why do so many people take this risk? The decision is often rooted in psychology. Researchers have identified a "tipping point effect": people are most likely to hire a lawyer when they feel a case is a toss-up. However, if they believe their case is either a guaranteed win or a hopeless cause, the motivation to pay for counsel plummets (Liu, Engel, & Chang, 2025). This is a dangerous cognitive trap. An untrained individual's assessment of their case's strength is rarely accurate because they do not know the procedural hurdles that can get a seemingly "perfect" case dismissed before it ever gets to the merits.
This is compounded by a natural distrust of the legal system and past negative experiences, which can lead individuals to believe they can do a better job on their own (Farber, 2025). While technology like ChatGPT might seem to level the playing field, studies show that AI-generated legal documents are often inaccurate and require extensive fact-checking, making them an unreliable substitute for professional expertise (Soliman, 2025).
The System Isn't Built for You
The hard truth is that the court system is designed for lawyers. From the moment a complaint is filed, a pro se litigant faces a labyrinth of procedural rules that can be fatal to their case. For example, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), courts are required to screen and dismiss inmate complaints that are deemed frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Edlich, 2024). While intended to curb frivolous lawsuits, this screening process, combined with the strict "plausibility" pleading standards established in cases like Twombly and Iqbal, creates a high barrier that many unrepresented litigants can't overcome, regardless of the merits of their underlying grievance (Edlich, 2024).
Similarly, the motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) has become a major hurdle. It is a tool that defense attorneys use to challenge the sufficiency of a complaint, and it has become a largely "unnecessary, unhelpful, and undesirable procedural step" in the context of pro se litigation, leading to delay and the premature dismissal of valid claims (Luedeman, 2025).
The "Discovery Crisis": Fighting Blind
If a pro se litigant manages to survive these initial procedural battles, they face what is arguably the most critical and difficult phase of a lawsuit: discovery. This is the formal process of exchanging information and gathering evidence. For the unrepresented, especially those who are incarcerated, this process is often defunct, leading to a "prison discovery crisis" (Stone, 2024).
The opposing party—the person or entity you are suing—controls almost all the relevant evidence, from documents and emails to video footage and witness lists. Without a lawyer who knows how to use discovery tools like interrogatories, requests for production, and depositions, a pro se litigant is essentially fighting blind. They are left in a "swearing contest" where their word is pitted against the defendant's, a contest they are almost bound to lose without corroborating evidence (Stone, 2024). This information asymmetry is not an accident; it is a feature of an adversarial system that a non-lawyer is simply not equipped to handle.
The Real-World Stakes: When Delay Causes Harm
These procedural failures have devastating real-world consequences, particularly in family law. For a survivor of domestic violence, divorce is not just a legal process; it is a pathway to safety and freedom. Yet, our divorce system is often "delayed by design," filled with mandatory waiting periods and procedural hurdles intended to deter divorce (Kohn, 2025). These delays disproportionately harm low-income litigants, who are often unrepresented, and can trap survivors in dangerous situations (Chapman, 2024; Kohn, 2025).
Even with the availability of self-help resources and pro se clinics, significant gaps in access to justice remain, particularly in rural areas where legal assistance is scarce (Trefz & Collinsworth, 2024; Karis, 2025). The complexity of the system means that even with simplified forms and instructions, pro se litigants are at a profound disadvantage (Karis, 2025).
Your Best Advocate is a Hired Advocate
The decision to represent yourself often comes from a good place—a desire for control, a belief in your own story, and a need to be heard. But the legal system is not a storytelling forum; it is a battlefield with its own rules of engagement. The psychological comfort of being in the driver's seat is an illusion when you don't know how to read the map or operate the machinery.
The evidence is clear: the system is fraught with procedural traps, hidden rules, and psychological biases that are nearly impossible for a non-lawyer to navigate successfully. The most effective way to ensure your story is heard, your rights are protected, and you have a fair chance at justice is to put your case in the hands of a professional who knows the way. Don't answer the siren song of self-representation. Hire a lawyer.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information contained herein is not a substitute for consulting with a qualified attorney.
Comments
Post a Comment