I know your comment is just internet puffery, but please know that the old adage is true: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."
There is a reason that judges will ask defendents multiple times if they're really, really, truely sure they want to represent themselves before allowing it.
As much as you wish it, a dictionary or common sense does little to nothing in a court of law. Mostly, you'll just annoy the judge who cares not about your dictionary, but the subtle details of copyright law, trademarks, uS code, registration timelines, dates of priority, common use, historical use, due diligence, and 50 other minute technical details I have never even thought about.
I have represented myself in court before... and won. I wouldn't recomend it for everyone, but in a relatively low stakes case, it is better in my opinion, for me, to represent myself than to not have my side heard at all because I can't afford a lawyer. Some folks don't enjoy legal stuff like I do, and it would not be worth yheir time.
I should also clarify that the OP probably made the right choice for them to settle, as they probably had more assets to lose than I do.
I don't remember what podcast I heard it from, but another opinion about representing yourself: it's more taxing on the judge. It consumes more court resources to represent yourself; which already is scarce. Which is why they often make sure you really want to do this.
In most cases, yeah. Most people have little to no idea how the courts run, so judges often have to give large amounts of leeway to non lawyer pro se defendants.
I have no formal training, and am under no illusions that I'm smart enough to do it. But I am curious if I personally could do it. Argue before a judge, and antagonize court staff to figure out what needs to be filed, and how. All depending on the scale and stakes of the case.
Maybe if it's that obnoxious to the state when people represent themselves, the state should provide advocates for civil cases where people can't afford a lawyer.
There is a reason that judges will ask defendents multiple times if they're really, really, truely sure they want to represent themselves before allowing it.
As much as you wish it, a dictionary or common sense does little to nothing in a court of law. Mostly, you'll just annoy the judge who cares not about your dictionary, but the subtle details of copyright law, trademarks, uS code, registration timelines, dates of priority, common use, historical use, due diligence, and 50 other minute technical details I have never even thought about.