 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
|
 Stub |
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
[edit] Disagree with the merge suggestion
I came to this page trying to find out the difference between an Attorney at Law and a normal Attorney. Specifically, I thought it might represent the difference between a trial lawyer and, for example, a patent lawyer. With the proposed merge, this sort of question will become less clear and the purpose of an encyclopedia, to provide a precise context for a specific word or phrase will be hindered by the naming ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.113.131 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Is a Pro Se (pro per) an attorney?
As in "I'm my own attorney". Laws are in place to protect and assist attorneys-at-law. No mention that they help pro ses. But if a self-represented litigant can use the word "attorney" applied to themselves, he/she can claim the protection too. An attorney not-at-law. This is an important distinction. What say you? JohnClarknew (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, a person who is pro se is not an attorney but just self-represented. Saying "I am my own attorney" is just an idiom. Of course, it is not uncommon to see a pro se attorney, but that is a person representing himself who also happens to be an attorney.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- California Code of Civil Procedure, under its provisions for disqualifying a judge, states, under article CCP170.1(a)(6)(B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification. This is about disqualifying a judge for bias or prejudice towards - wait for it - only a lawyer? But he can be biased or prejudiced towards a self-represented person, a Pro Se/Pro Per? Does this make sense? Is that the intention of the Judicial Council, who make the rules? Can we have some U.S. lawyer input here? JohnClarknew (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- The Judicial Council only promulgates the Rules of Court. It's the Legislature with the consent of the Governor who enacts amendments to the California Code of Civil Procedure. See civil procedure in the United States. As for your question about that particular clause of CCP 170.1, that makes zero sense. You're focusing on a non-issue. There are at least three other provisions of that statute that cover situations where a judge is biased against a party, self-represented or not. If you don't understand the statute, you need to hire a lawyer.
- No lawyer, myself included, is interested in tutoring a newbie for free in the fine art of statutory interpretation, which takes at least a week of face-to-face time to teach properly and one to two years to fully master. It's also completely irrelevant to the topic of this article. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the pro bono advice. You talk exactly like a lawyer. Weaselly. And I fail to read 3 similar provisions in the law covering a self-represented Pro Per''. Check it. CCP170.1. And this subject should indeed be mentioned in the article. IMHO, contrary to your IMO. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- My further research reveals that we pro pers (pro ses) are indeed covered, in CCP 170.3(a)(2)(A) which reads "The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party." So I'm happy to close the book on this question. CCP170.3 JohnClarknew (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- "[O]ne to two years to fully master"? I would say one to two years to become competent at parsing, and a lifetime to master.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
