What is pro se? Pros and cons using pro se in divorce proceedings?

Question

I'm looking to get people's opinions on using pro se in divorce proceedings in California, namely Alameda County. I have the basic gist of pro se but want to know of people's experiences. Is it worth it? I've been preped by a lawyer and have been assured that family law judges would favor my case due to the unique circumstances prevailing i.e. I've been the primary care taker of my two children for the last 6 years. But I don't know how the finances will pan out. We are trying to work out a settlement outside of court but keep getting into arguements. We want to use mediation. But would arbitration or pro se be better in lieu of our arguing? Any advice would help and serious ones at that, please.

Answer 1

I'm an attorney in California, although I do not practice family law. Some counties have made great strides to help "pro se" litigants in divorces cases while others have not. Representing yourself can be very hard. If you spend enough time reading law books and local court rules, you might be able to slug through it and get things done yourself. You also have to consider the value of your time.

Representing yourself is like trying to be your own doctor. You might be able to recognize a broken arm when you see it, but are qualified to set the bone so it heals properly? Maybe, maybe not. You should at least consult a local attorney to see what the potential costs might be.

Answer 2

In Indiana you don't need a lawyer if you are mediating. You and your spouse would meet with the mediator and work out a deal that is best for you both. The mediator (a lawyer) doesn't represent either one of you.

You and your spouse are arguing because he doesn't want to give you what you think you need. A lawyer/mediator can help figure out what is reasonable.

I'm a woman and let me ask you this...if you won the lottery, would you go to an attorney to help you figure stuff out? If you would, then at a time in your life when your decisions will have a lasting effect on you AND your children, why would you even consider representing yourself? It's foolish. I'm sure money is a concern, but surely your husband will have an attorney! Find an attorney who will advocate for you and your children and pay him $10.00 a week until he's paid off. That will be the best $10 you ever spent (and doesn't stay on the hips like eating french fries to deal with the stress).

Good Luck.

Answer 3

You might find arbitration less intimidating than going into court pro se, because the procedural rules, etc., for arbitration are generally more informal than the rules for courtroom procedure. It's also usually held in a less intimidating space, if you're really worried about your nerves giving you trouble.

You should be clear, though, about the differences between mediation and arbitration, because you seem to blur the lines. In mediation, the mediator tries to find ground for agreement between the parties but lacks the authority to impose a solution. In arbitration, the arbitrator has no duty to try to find a middle ground but will instead try the case like a trial with looser rules. The arbitrator tells the parties what the solution will be, and arbitration is usually binding -- that is, it can be enforced by court order if necessary. Beware of anyone who claims to be combining mediation and arbitration, because the roles are fundamentally incompatible. Be aware that mediation may not lead to a solution, so you might get nowhere with it; with arbitration, on the contrary, a decision will be made one way or the other, but there is much less emphasis on finding a consensus solution. As long as you're clear about which alternative dispute resolution you're getting into, you may find it cheaper and easier to do yourself than getting into court pro se. Good luck, whichever way you go.

Answer 4

Pro se means to prosecute the case yourself without using a lawyer. There are books available giving the details of how to do it in California generally, and possibly Alameda County specifically, and you should get one and read it. The biggest question is this: can you reach an agreement with your (soon-to-be) ex regarding all the gory details of the separation? That means assets (cars, furniture, cash, insurance policies, investments) as well as child care custody and costs. If the answer to any of this is NO, you probably need a lawyer. In my Santa Clara county divorce (which was amicable), we used one lawyer for both of us; she gave useful advice on some property settlement issues.

Answer 5

I was married for only one year but during that time we built a house and purchased other land down from the house...we didn't have any children (thank god)...but we agreed on everything which was a huge bonus.
We went to see a lawyer together and the lawyer advised us not to use hire him or a different one becuz it would be a waste of money for both of us. He advised us to go through our divorce Pro Se. We were very pleased with the service and the help/advice that team did for us. I would honestly use them again (even though I don't have to worry about it for my future unless the laws here change...) I would recommend it to anyone....she had all the paper work there that was needed. She had other cases that involved children and homes and other assets that the divorced couple acquired. The company that we went through offered councelling and ways for the couple to agree on things....
Good luck and take care of yourself....and your children. Any ?s you can email me.

Answer 6

Pro se- latin- for oneself.
Filing for a divorce on your own. I would not recomend it! I did my ownbut had no kids and was not contested. If you have talked to a lawyer ask them what they think. It will be hard and bills will rack up but for kids sake I would use a lawyer.

Medition is best, that mediator is nutral.

Arbitration is final word. Jdg decides. Could work, better than trials.

Be AWARE a lot of jdgs still think mom is best.

You have to check w/laws in your state. They vary big time from state to state and I live in KY. check out your states legislative web site.

Whatever you decide---good luck. I hope and pray that things work out for you and the children.

Answer 7

Pro Se means you are representing yourself. Since you seem to not be getting along with your soon to be ex I would make sure you have an attorney. It will be hard and expensive to undo something (if it is still possible) if you are unhappy with what happens when you are on your own.

"A stitch in time saves nine"

Answer 8

Are you sure your aren't thinking of per se or pro bono? Go to google and do a search on those two in quotations. A law library will come up and tell you what each is.

Answer 9

Pro Se is fine and i would HIGHLY recommend mediation if at all possible

Answer 10

A Latin phrase that means "for himself." A person who represents himself in a legal matter alone without the help of a lawyer is said to appear pro se.
=================
If this was a small matter I would seriously consider using this system. In fact I have done it in several instances and won in two out of three, one of the cases was against the auto insurance company, they refused to pay for a claim of about 4,500 and there were 3 lawyers against me. They appealed I still won but a lesser amount was given by the judge. So it is worth considering for SMALL CLAIMS.

In a case like divorce proceedings were the outcome will last a lifetime and the amounts are in the tens or maybe hundreds of thousands over your lifetime you should seriously consider hiring a lawyer, get the best one you can afford, if you can't afford it charge it. While it may appear that you could save money by going it alone chances are in the long run you will loose. Not even lawyers should represent themselves.

Remember that old saying

"Only a Fool has Himself for a Lawyer"
--proverb


===============================================
A Milwaukeeworld Exclusive

By Michael Horne

On September 13th, 2005, Atty. Joe Kaye filed a lawsuit on his own behalf ("pro se") in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging a violation of federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) by a number of entities, inlcuding the City of Milwaukee, Ald. Michael D'Amato, Julilly Kohler, Lincoln Fowler and others, claiming they conspired to wrongfully deny him the opportunity to buy and develop city-owned real estate.
The riverfront property at 1142-58 E. Kane Place was eventually sold to Kohler, who had been vice-chair of the City of Milwaukee Plan Commission.
On July 11th, 2006, U. S. District Judge J. P. Stadtmueller dismissed the case, finding it to be frivolous, and ordered sanctions against Kaye, including that he "reimburse the defendants for their reasonable and necessary attorney's fees."
Kaye made many allegations in his complaints, including behind-the-scenes machinations between Kohler and fellow commissioner Fowler; that Ald. D'Amato collaborated with officers of the East Village Association [EVA] to create a historical preservation district that would exempt Kohler's proposed development; that D'Amato, Kohler and others engaged in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the EVA election; that a wire fraud scheme existed; that D'Amato stole a yard sign from a neighbor; and that D'Amato's actions constituted theft and extortion.
The allegations were contained in a rambling 19 page complaint riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, reminiscent of "Riddley Walker,"a post-apocalyptic cult novel of which Kaye is apparently fond.
His business address on court documents is listed as "Grooling and Smarling, 7355 N. Green Bay Av., Glendale." "Grooling and Smarling" are neologisms introduced in the novel, which is either gibberish or inspired, depending upon the reader. [Editor's note: It is gibberish.]
The city attorney's motion in November, asking to dismiss the suit, called Kaye's case "a rambling, disjointed and unsupported complaint that fails to state a claim.
"[Kaye's claims are] fatally deficient in every material respect ... [and are] linguistically and logically incoherent."
In other words, the sort of case one might find from a jailhouse lawyer, but not from a licensed attorney.
In the court's ruling yesterday, Stadtmueller said, "While we treat pro se litigants gently, a pro se attorney is not entitled to special treatment," the veteran jurist ruled. "Although the court liberally construes allegations in a pro se litigant's complaint ... the court does not apply this principle of construction to Kaye's complaint because Kaye is an attorney."
He added, "Kaye does not specify the many victims, the time frame involved, the five separate schemes or the distinct injuries. Kaye does not cite to any allegations within his complaint or to any exhibits.
"Kaye's RICO claims must be dismissed for another reason: Kaye has not properly pleaded the existence of an enterprise. ... Each of the RICO claims, therefore, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
"Kaye should have known that his RICO claims had no legal basis," he added.
The amount Kaye must pay in attorney fees is not known at this time, but it could be considerable. The city attorney, for example, hired Foley & Lardner, the state's oldest and largest law firm, to assist it. Kohler likewise hired an attorney.
If you would like to send some business his way, to help with the bills, you may contact him at the address above. Or, perhaps the folks who talked Kaye into filing this suit might ante up. But chances are you could stuff the tip jar at Wolski's with hundred dollar bills every day for a month and not have enough to cover the bills. (We'll tell you the totals as they become available.)
(See milwaukeeworld's original posting for more information.)
[Author's note: As has been mentioned before, I lived for many years in the adjacent property on E. Kane Pl. owned by Julilly Kohler and now incorporated into the proposed development site.]

UPDATE:

According to a news release from Ald. Michael S. D’Amato, legal fees in the case may top $50,000.