Pro Se

[You Are Guilty]

Point being, there's a very fine line between providing research/giving samples and determining the "legal course" of a case. In fact, there's a chain of stores that proclaims to do just that - a "pro se" resource center, and of the 12 or so states they have opened in, they have been investigated and sued in just about all of them for unauthorized practice of law.


End result, if the paralegal only does the work a pro-se specifically requests ("find a case saying hearsay is inadmissible on summary judgment motions" or "get me a blank Form D from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals"), they're probably safe. As soon as they cross that line to "oh, you need to file Form D", they run the risk of being charged with unauthorized practice.

 

[meganproser]

Point being, there's a very fine line between providing research/giving samples and determining the "legal course" of a case.

I agree, it's a fine line. The bottom line is, the coach had better make damn sure the PS knows and understands what’s happening in HIS case, every step of the way. If the PS is not willing to be that involved, he’s looking for representation, not a coach.

 

[panzertanker]

I agree, it's a fine line. The bottom line is, the coach had better make damn sure the PS knows and understands what’s happening in HIS case, every step of the way. If the PS is not willing to be that involved, he’s looking for representation, not a coach.

The problem is, since you seem to insinuate that YOU are a paralegal through the verbage of your posting, you cannot "coach" a pro se filer either:

Main Entry: coach
Pronunciation: 'kOch
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English coche, from Middle French, from German Kutsche, from Hungarian kocsi (szekér), literally, wagon from Kocs, Hungary
1 a : a large usually closed four-wheeled horse-drawn carriage having doors in the sides and an elevated seat in front for the driver b : a railroad passenger car intended primarily for day travel c : BUS 1a d : TRAILER 3b e : a two-door enclosed automobile f : a class of passenger air transportation at a lower fare than first class
2 [from the concept that the tutor conveys the student through his examinations] a : a private tutor b : one who instructs or trains a performer or a team of performers; specifically : one who instructs players in the fundamentals of a competitive sport and directs team strategy <football coach>

It would seem to me that, if you were providing "research assistance" to a pro se filer, you would have to know that the filer is very well versed in the law and in what he will require to file pro se. Both you and YAG agree to that point.
Problem is, if the filer is well versed, what the heck do they need your "research assistance" for??? Why would a paralegal, who is knowledgable about the risks, WANT to take such a risk?

The risk is akin to my nurse diagnosing my patient for me, without my knowledge, and the patient doing whatever she told him to do to make him better. That behavior gets people hurt, or worse case scenario, dead. And lands the offender in court. Why take a risk of damaging a pro se filer, AND risk your freedom in the process???

 

[meganproser]

The problem is, since you seem to insinuate that YOU are a paralegal through the verbage of your posting,

Where did you see such an insinuation?

It would seem to me that, if you were providing "research assistance" to a pro se filer, you would have to know that the filer is very well versed in the law and in what he will require to file pro se.

Coach = “one who instructs”. A non-lawyer is prohibited from PRACTICING law, not from TEACHING another that which will enable him to practice law on his own behalf.

There is nothing stopping a non-lawyer from walking someone else through the entire process. It’s just that the PS must be walking with his eyes wide open.

Problem is, if the filer is well versed, what the heck do they need your "research assistance" for???

I didn’t say the PS should be well versed, I said he must be willing to become well versed. The coach is going to present him with information and he has to be willing to read and understand that information, so he knows how he wants to proceed. This is because it is his responsibility to make decisions about his case and he can’t do that unless he’s informed.

Why would a paralegal, who is knowledgable about the risks, WANT to take such a risk?

There is no risk if you know the law and stay within it. OP’s proposed coach is his cousin. I assume she is willing to help because she can.

Your analogy, with the wayward nurse, was equal to practicing without a license.

The medical version of coaching a PS would be this. A man realizes he’s got an incurable disease and refuses to accept the prognosis. He decides to do his own research on the disease and hires a medical professional to help him find all relevant information, translate the medical babble into English, etc.

Perhaps when it’s all said and done, he will wish he’d listened to his Doctor. But then there is the story of Lorenzo’s Oil...

Why take a risk of damaging a pro se filer, AND risk your freedom in the process???

A responsible coach won’t risk either.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

The problem is, since you seem to insinuate that YOU are a paralegal through the verbage of your posting,

Where did you see such an insinuation?

It would seem to me that, if you were providing "research assistance" to a pro se filer, you would have to know that the filer is very well versed in the law and in what he will require to file pro se.

Coach = “one who instructs”. A non-lawyer is prohibited from PRACTICING law, not from TEACHING another that which will enable him to practice law on his own behalf.

There is nothing stopping a non-lawyer from walking someone else through the entire process. It’s just that the PS must be walking with his eyes wide open.

Problem is, if the filer is well versed, what the heck do they need your "research assistance" for???

I didn’t say the PS should be well versed, I said he must be willing to become well versed. The coach is going to present him with information and he has to be willing to read and understand that information, so he knows how he wants to proceed. This is because it is his responsibility to make decisions about his case and he can’t do that unless he’s informed.

Why would a paralegal, who is knowledgable about the risks, WANT to take such a risk?

There is no risk if you know the law and stay within it. OP’s proposed coach is his cousin. I assume she is willing to help because she can.

Your analogy, with the wayward nurse, was equal to practicing without a license.

The medical version of coaching a PS would be this. A man realizes he’s got an incurable disease and refuses to accept the prognosis. He decides to do his own research on the disease and hires a medical professional to help him find all relevant information, translate the medical babble into English, etc.

Perhaps when it’s all said and done, he will wish he’d listened to his Doctor. But then there is the story of Lorenzo’s Oil...

Why take a risk of damaging a pro se filer, AND risk your freedom in the process???

A responsible coach won’t risk either.

Todd?...Why bother? Narcissistic, personality disorder......remember?

Yet another post twisting words that only she can understand.

Todd? There is no logic in her posts. She takes the law and defines it as such,

"Of course they can't help, per se...but what is help"? Basically stating there is always a back door policy, but not a legal one."

I'm surprised no one caught on.

This post for starters....(QUOTE)I didn’t say the PS should be well versed, I said he must be willing to become well versed. (QUOTE) HUH?????????

I think you left me at a rest stop Todd.

 

[meganproser]

"Of course they can't help, per se...but what is help"?

You have grossly misquoted me. Could that be why no one else “caught” whatever it is you think they should have caught?

Misquoting others presents problems for everyone so I offer you a brief but important lesson: Quotation marks indicate that the text within is another person’s exact words.

I have not suggested doing anything illegal. If you can't understand the conversation, stop embarrassing yourself by trying to participate.

Nitey nite my TOY!

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Post Your Case To An Attorney

#49 Today, 06:21 AM
meganproser
Member Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 432

The problem is, since you seem to insinuate that YOU are a paralegal through the verbage of your posting,

Where did you see such an insinuation?

It would seem to me that, if you were providing "research assistance" to a pro se filer, you would have to know that the filer is very well versed in the law and in what he will require to file pro se.

Coach = “one who instructs”. A non-lawyer is prohibited from PRACTICING law, not from TEACHING another that which will enable him to practice law on his own behalf.

There is nothing stopping a non-lawyer from walking someone else through the entire process. It’s just that the PS must be walking with his eyes wide open.

Problem is, if the filer is well versed, what the heck do they need your "research assistance" for???

I didn’t say the PS should be well versed, I said he must be willing to become well versed. The coach is going to present him with information and he has to be willing to read and understand that information, so he knows how he wants to proceed. This is because it is his responsibility to make decisions about his case and he can’t do that unless he’s informed.

Why would a paralegal, who is knowledgable about the risks, WANT to take such a risk?

There is no risk if you know the law and stay within it. OP’s proposed coach is his cousin. I assume she is willing to help because she can.

Your analogy, with the wayward nurse, was equal to practicing without a license.

The medical version of coaching a PS would be this. A man realizes he’s got an incurable disease and refuses to accept the prognosis. He decides to do his own research on the disease and hires a medical professional to help him find all relevant information, translate the medical babble into English, etc.

Perhaps when it’s all said and done, he will wish he’d listened to his Doctor. But then there is the story of Lorenzo’s Oil...

Why take a risk of damaging a pro se filer, AND risk your freedom in the process???

A responsible coach won’t risk either.
__________________

HMMM...Yep, your words. Did you need quotes around this statement to enable us further to understand it was your words?

You really should help us further understand your disorder.

Keep up here poser, the above is what I was referring to.

 

[panzertanker]

Where did you see such an insinuation?

Am I the only one who has read your posts in both here AND the old JW debacle??? Re-read your posts and you will see that you insinuate :
Main Entry: in·sin·u·ate
Pronunciation: in-'sin-y&-"wAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin insinuatus, past participle of insinuare, from in- + sinuare to bend, curve, from sinus curve
transitive senses
1 a : to introduce (as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way <insinuate doubts into a trusting mind> b : to impart or communicate with artful or oblique reference
2 : to introduce (as oneself) by stealthy, smooth, or artful means
intransitive senses
1 archaic : to enter gently, slowly, or imperceptibly : CREEP
2 archaic : to ingratiate oneself
synonym see INTRODUCE, SUGGEST
- in·sin·u·a·tive /-"wA-tiv/ adjective
- in·sin·u·a·tor /-"wA-t&r/ noun

through the context of your posts that you are a paralegal...

Coach = “one who instructs”. A non-lawyer is prohibited from PRACTICING law, not from TEACHING another that which will enable him to practice law on his own behalf.

How, exactly, are you able to "teach" a subject that you are not allowed to practice???

I didn’t say the PS should be well versed, I said he must be willing to become well versed. The coach is going to present him with information and he has to be willing to read and understand that information, so he knows how he wants to proceed. This is because it is his responsibility to make decisions about his case and he can’t do that unless he’s informed.

And exactly how do you "inform" someone so that they can proceed without overstepping those bounds? YAG states:

End result, if the paralegal only does the work a pro-se specifically requests ("find a case saying hearsay is inadmissible on summary judgment motions" or "get me a blank Form D from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals"), they're probably safe. As soon as they cross that line to "oh, you need to file Form D", they run the risk of being charged with unauthorized practice.

Using this statement, which you DID NOT DISPUTE, enlighten me as to how you inform:
Main Entry: in·form
Pronunciation: in-'form
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French enformer, from Latin informare, from in- + forma form
transitive senses
1 obsolete : to give material form to
2 a : to give character or essence to <the principles which inform modern teaching> b : to be the characteristic quality of : ANIMATE <the compassion that informs her work>
3 obsolete : GUIDE, DIRECT
4 obsolete : to make known
5 : to communicate knowledge to <inform a prisoner of his rights>

a pro se filer without violating the law, as YAG has pointed out?

Your analogy, with the wayward nurse, was equal to practicing without a license.

EXACTLY!!! This is what I was pointing out, and the EXACT thing that both YAG and BadApple40 state a paralegal could be charged with as well; practicing LAW without a license...

The medical version of coaching a PS would be this. A man realizes he’s got an incurable disease and refuses to accept the prognosis. He decides to do his own research on the disease and hires a medical professional to help him find all relevant information, translate the medical babble into English, etc.

That is NOT what you said, you stated that the paralegal can "teach", "research", "coach" and "She can find him documents that are well written examples of what he needs to draft.
She can provide him with the points and authorities he needs. She is allowed to teach him about procedure. It’s all about her ability to do these things while covering her own ass with adequate documentation that shows OP is making his own decisions, and handling his own case."
No where do I see you say "translate", etc.

A responsible coach won’t risk either.

It seems to me, using your own words and points, that a paralegal who undertakes helping a pro se filer IS risking both, and is not being a responsible "coach".

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Using her own words against her frustrates her no end, almost as much as asking her to cite her source. She draws no distinction between reality and the confabulations of her own mind. No one on this forum, except for her victims, has any respect for her. She stays so she can get attention. Her victims like JW suffer. Who knows what will happen when he loses touch with reality when his case goes sour because she encouraged him to go pro se rather than get an attorney. Does she wat to be responsible for the carnage? Maybe she is looking for the headline "MeganProser, coach to ******* Bomber" news at 11.

 

[meganproser]

Re-read your posts and you will see that you insinuate :
through the context of your posts that you are a paralegal...

I don’t need to re-read. I would know if I’d insinuated anything. I did not.

How, exactly, are you able to "teach" a subject that you are not allowed to practice???

You are joking right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by You Are GuiltyEnd result, if the paralegal only does the work a pro-se specifically requests ("find a case saying hearsay is inadmissible on summary judgment motions" or "get me a blank Form D from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals"), they're probably safe. As soon as they cross that line to "oh, you need to file Form D", they run the risk of being charged with unauthorized practice.

Using this statement, which you DID NOT DISPUTE, enlighten me as to how you inform:

I didn’t dispute it OR state that I agreed with it. I felt I had made my point regarding OP’s question and I saw no need to start debating the legality of each specific act, with YAG.

However, since you bring it up... I see nothing in the law that limits a coach to providing only materials that were specifically asked for. At the same time, I believe the coach may be crossing the line if she begins dictating exactly what steps the PS should take.

Quote:
Originally Posted by meganproserThe medical version of coaching a PS would be this. A man realizes he’s got an incurable disease and refuses to accept the prognosis. He decides to do his own research on the disease and hires a medical professional to help him find all relevant information, translate the medical babble into English, etc.

That is NOT what you said, you stated that the paralegal can "teach", "research", "coach"

Alrighty then. Let’s begin by learning all about what an analogy is, keeping in mind that YOU are the one who tried to compare assisting a patient with assisting a PS:

Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin -- compare HOMOLOGY
synonym see LIKENESS

Since an analogy is the comparison of two things that are NOT identical, it follows that the words used to create the analogy may differ in some respects.

Are you really unable to see the similarity between “teach", "research", "coach”
and “help him find all relevant information, translate the medical babble into English”?

I answered your first questions about this because they were reasonable.

I started to give you the specifics you asked for in your second post, until I realized you either lack the ability to understand basic English or you just want to debate what the meaning of is, is. Either way, I see there is no point in taking the time to discuss specifics with you.

 

[panzertanker]

However, since you bring it up... I see nothing in the law that limits a coach to providing only materials that were specifically asked for. At the same time, I believe the coach may be crossing the line if she begins dictating exactly what steps the PS should take.

I would agree with this staement, however, tell me how can an uninformed PS ask you to research something when he has no idea what it is he needs? That is my point. As most PS would probably be unfamiliar with the law, they would need someone who is versed with the law to help them. Enter the Paralegal. Now the paralegal wants to help PS get everything correct. But is not allowed to say "you need to file ABC also". So the conundrum starts. How do you "teach" something to a PS that you cannot practice? The moment you tell PS "you need to file ABC", you are practicing law without a license. So how do you teach the PS he needs this form filed without telling him to file it? Write it in invisible ink and send him to the bathroom with a blacklight?
Understand my point now?
It is a shame that when someone asks you to clarify or answer legitimate questions, you cop out and say you aren't going to take the time to do so.....a shame really.
As for my ability to understand english, I have had no problems yet. I do recognize that you might have that trouble. I have seen literally tens of posts calling you a troll, a poser, a dangerous person and clueless. With that many responses, many of them from actual attorneys from this forum, a reasonable person (in this case you) would assume that they might either be incorrect or misinformed. Not you. You continue right on and act oblivious to people calling you to the carpet.
Which one of us has difficulty understanding basic English? The majic eightball says "all signs point to you".

 

[meganproser]

however, tell me how can an uninformed PS ask you to research something when he has no idea what it is he needs?

The PS says, “Coach, I want to sue someone but I have no idea how to do it.”
Coach provides general information on the anatomy of a lawsuit.
PS says, “How do I know which court to use?”
Coach provides information on jurisdiction and venue.
PS says, “I read the info but don’t understand it and I’m still not sure where I should file.”
Coach reads through informational materials with PS, discusses options. The only thing the coach CAN’T do, is conclude or lead PS to conclude, which way to proceed.
And so it goes, one step at a time, throughout the process.

But is not allowed to say "you need to file ABC also". So the conundrum starts. How do you "teach" something to a PS that you cannot practice? The moment you tell PS "you need to file ABC", you are practicing law without a license.

The coach doesn’t TELL PS anything. If PS has a question, coach provides research on the subject of his question. Written instructional materials, civil procedure notes, case law, etc.

So how do you teach the PS he needs this form filed without telling him to file it? Write it in invisible ink and send him to the bathroom with a blacklight?
Understand my point now?

I understood your point to begin with.

It is a shame that when someone asks you to clarify or answer legitimate questions, you cop out and say you aren't going to take the time to do so.....a shame really.

It’s not about copping out it’s a matter of evaluating the request. I am more than happy to continue a conversation with someone who has demonstrated an ability to discuss a matter of law on the merits.

Answering a challenge to something I believe to be true forces me to review the subject and from time to time, results in additional knowledge or correction of my prior understanding.

I will also spend as much time as necessary, to teach a sincerely interested individual.

You don’t fit either of the above descriptions. I know you want to spar with me, but I don’t feel like arguing with you about a topic you are completely ignorant of.

I don’t bother with your forums and you are out of your element when you come to the forums I usually post in. As much as you want to fight someone else’s battle for them, show off your sparring skills, and kick my ass, lol, you are not the man for the job.

I have seen literally tens of posts calling you a troll, a poser, a dangerous person and clueless. With that many responses, many of them from actual attorneys from this forum,

Interestingly, that statement is true of almost any regular poster to this site, lol. BTW, have you noticed how often “actual attorneys” on this site are proven wrong, often by other “actual attorneys, other times, by non-attorneys?

a reasonable person (in this case you) would assume that they might either be incorrect or misinformed.

The reasonable person does more than assume. She investigates, beginning by asking the source to provide evidence of his/her position.

Not you. You continue right on and act oblivious to people calling you to the carpet.

"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
Giordano Bruno

You don’t have the faintest idea if I know what I’m talking about or not. You listen to and believe the baseless rants of others. This speaks volumes of your intellect.

Which one of us has difficulty understanding basic English? The majic eightball says "all signs point to you".

And there we have it. When you are not listening to others, you are basing your decisions on a majic eightball! Do you ever really LOOK at a dispute and try to find the “truth” within it by researching the facts on your own? Do you have any original thoughts of your own?

You revealed your sheep’s brain earlier... during the JW discussion. It’s the reason I generally ignore you.

You’ve got to display some basic knowledge of a subject if you want to debate it with me. I don’t care to bother explaining elementary things to someone who has no need to know.