MIC2
===

[00:00:00] 

MIC2: so we're talking today about representing yourself in court. Which attorneys use the term representing yourself, pro se PRO, space se. What does that

MIC1: What does that stand for?

MIC2: representing yourself? I think it's Latin. I don't know. I'm sure there's a real Latin Google term, but in our world it means representing yourself.

I'll start off with this saying, which is apropos, which is a person who represents themselves as a fool for a client. , I'll put it this way. As an attorney, I'd never represent myself.

I had to deal with my business dissolution, had to pay an attorney. I get it. It sucks. But even as an attorney. I wouldn't represent myself, I wouldn't write my own will, trust, et cetera. Not that I have a trust or my kids have a trust, but if I had to do a trust, I could, I wouldn't do it myself. So even though in theory I've had the training, I've passed the bar exam, all the things, I would not represent myself ever, but especially on anything that was out of my wheelhouse, if you will.

, Look, lawyers are expensive. I know that. But on the flip side, the cost of doing business on your own is, in my opinion, never gonna be worth it.

, And I can say for [00:01:00] sure, the judges that I've have spoken to about it. No one is thinking this is a good choice. So at that, why don't you ask me some questions? 'cause before we started, you started with a few.

MIC1: All right. So let's say

You're separating. 

They say, we're not fighting. This is great. I don't need to pay an attorney because we're gonna get along and they're not gonna be mean to me. And so the first step I assume would be to go to mediation by yourself?

MIC2: If you're both representing yourselves and you want to divide your assets and file for your divorce on your own, you don't need to use a mediator. It's an option. Keep in mind, a mediator doesn't represent either person. They can't give you legal advice, and I believe under the rules of responsibility, they aren't.

Technically allowed to write your final agreement. They can write something called a memorandum of understanding, but that doesn't have all the terms. So then typically if attorneys are involved with mediation, they will either draft the agreement and then we review it or a memorandum of understanding.

But you don't have to go to mediation. It's just an option. It's an option for anybody, not just somebody who is representing themselves.

MIC1: What are some of the reasons that you hear that people mostly choose to go pro [00:02:00] se?

MIC2: mostly it's cost. They don't wanna pay a lawyer or a lot of times I see people who have had a lawyer and decide that they can do it better than that lawyer. So it's typically, from my experience, people don't wanna pay.

The distrust, I feel like is probably a part of it to some extent, but I, I, I don't know of anybody who, has made that their basis, but usually people don't wanna pay. Lawyers are expensive.

I have a case right now where the person is representing themselves and keep in mind it hasn't been consistent, although pretty close to consistent litigation since 2019.

So we're almost done seven years and this person's gone through three or four lawyers and now they're representing themselves.

When you're dealing with property settlement agreements, you're never gonna think about the things, everything that you need to think about or the safeguards you're gonna put in.

For example, if someone is receiving alimony as a part of their agreement, the person receiving alimony should request the other side to secure that alimony with life insurance, cause alimony terminates upon death, remarriage, or cohabitation under Pennsylvania law, and obviously we know what remarriage is, cohabitation has its own specific definition, but death.

So if someone is [00:03:00] entitled to, we'll just even go big $10,000 a month for, five years. So that's $120,000 a year. $600,000 overall, you go, oh, great. I'm getting this alimony, husband or wife, whoever's paying dies. 

MIC1: Day two, , 

MIC2: you're outta your alimony. And if you relied on that money for paying your mortgage, whatever, you're out.

But if you're. Alimony is secured by life insurance with you as the listed beneficiary, you're protected. So I would say almost every single time I get a property settlement agreement, even from a mediator, because again, mediators can't give legal advice. It's not that they're doing anything wrong.

They can't say, Hey, wife or husband, whoever's getting the alimony. This should be secured by life insurance. So even things like that pop up, that's the one I think I see the most every time I review a property settlement agreement. From people who come from mediation, pro se individuals more often than not, have trouble even getting the divorce complaint filed.

'cause there's certain rules. But where the bigger concern comes in is people who wanna represent themselves in court. Whether that is a true trial where there's testimony or even a non record hearing the first thing you need to know is that you, as the person representing yourself, has the [00:04:00] same obligation to know the rules as the attorney.

Yeah, keep in mind there's a lot of attorneys who don't and 

MIC1: like in front of a judge, a judge who is judging you.

MIC2: that is their job. But it's also, it's evidentiary. One of the bigger things is, the evidentiary rules. So if you think you're gonna be able to introduce a document, whatever that document is, more often than not, it's hearsay and it's inadmissible.

And , you're supposed to know that you need to have a witness to testify to the document if that's what you're gonna use. People try to come in with police reports. Police reports are hearsay. ' cause 99% of the time police reports are reporting what somebody else told them. Even if it was what the police officer observed themselves, that is still hearsay.

So documents don't come in if there is not an exception to the hearsay rule. And so if you represent yourself and you think you're gonna come in with this police report, . It is hearsay.

MIC1: So let's back up to, you're going to a custody trial.

The other side's, pro se, you're representing someone. What kind of communication do you have? Because obviously lawyers talk normally when there's two attorneys on two sides, so how do you communicate with that pro se person in place of them having an 

MIC2: attorney

I have a rule [00:05:00] myself, I can't speak for other attorneys that I will only speak to pro se individuals regardless of what it is in writing.

Because people will say, you say something that you didn't say once in a blue moon. If I have to speak to them, I make somebody else sit in the room with me so that I have a witness. I've had actually a client forward my email along to somebody else and modify what I wrote. So I can't always control if someone does something like that, but I'll at least have the record of what I actually said.

So don't be surprised if you choose to represent yourself. If an attorney on the other says, I'm only gonna communicate with you in writing, they gotta cover their. , their butt. 

That is first and foremost how I will communicate. Or if I'm in the courtroom, then differently I will communicate directly with them.

But so long as there's someone there writing down what I'm 

MIC1: saying. Yeah,

that makes sense. And then what sorts of things are you communicating with them about leading up to the trial?

MIC2: So I have a couple trials coming up with the one judge, and he's a little different than others, but we have to exchange documents.

This is what I intend to introduce. This is what this person intends to introduce. And keep in mind in my head I'm going, oh, this is gonna be inadmissible or whatever. And I will admit that judges sometimes are [00:06:00] a lot more lax with pro se individuals, but not to the point of no rules. And it's frustrating to be honest.

People have said, oh, you're gonna kill 'em because you're in court with this person who's pro se. It's a lot harder, actually. It's a lot harder to have a bad lawyer or someone who's pro se. It's a lot easier to have a good lawyer so we can be emailing about document exchanges. Obviously settlement negotiations have come up.

Another thing that you need to know if you represent yourself is that settlement negotiations are inadmissible. You can't say, oh, well, she or he tried to resolve this case and this is what they said. The court can't consider that. The only exception I've ever had that I jumped on in a case was when they quote unquote opened the door.

So if they start talking about , a negotiation and I wanted to use it against him, then they opened the door. But for the most part, settlement negotiations are inadmissible. So that's why you'll see a lot of attorneys write for settlement purposes only, and some of them go so far as to say the rule of evidence.

But generally, when you write for settlement purposes only, or even if you don't, it's inadmissible. So that's that one 

MIC1: part.

So they're sending you,, documents. You're getting ready to go to trial and you're like, these documents you can't use these. Are you pushing back and saying 

MIC2: that?

Hell no.

I wait until I'm in the courtroom to take 

[00:07:00] advantage

of. them. Okay.

So, because keep in mind, I have to have an appeal record. So if a judge lets something in, ' cause I actually have one coming up where I'm concerned that the judge will allow something that's hearsay come in, , it's absolutely hearsay and I think it's an absolute appeal issue, so I could appeal it.

I'm not telling them in advance, I'm not gonna do their job for them and say, this is an admissible, this is not.

MIC1: just, you take it and you're like, cool, thanks.

MIC2: And then I go, te

if they ask me to stipulate to it, then I could say, I amm, not stipulating, it's inadmissible, but I'm not gonna do their job for them. . I mean, this also happens with an experienced lawyer.

So you hire inexperienced lawyer, also known as cheap, meaning I don't wanna pay your $500 an hour, but I'll pay this person two 50. I absolutely take advantage of those people. Not unethically, but for example, like I'm not gonna tell them that's inadmissible hearsay.

Or , there's times, and I've told other attorneys in my office this if you go to support court, for example, and they don't think to put in a provision about childcare expenses that you know is to their client's benefit. I'm not telling 

them that

, I don't have to. That's what I mean by taking advantage of 'em is just not telling them how to do their job.

Look, I've got taken advantage of as a young lawyer, without a doubt happens to all of us, [00:08:00] but our jobs are to be candor to the tribunal, to the court, but doesn't mean we have to do things to our client's detriment.

I'm not gonna be dishonest, I'm not gonna say that's not a rule.

MIC1: You're trying to get the best outcome for , 

your 

MIC2: client

MIC1: so you guys exchange documents, you're getting ready to go to trial and then there is a pretrial conference, to trial hearing. So

MIC2: in Chester County there are two steps. One's called a pretrial status conference, and then, and where that is about a 15 to 30 minute, conference with a judge who's not necessarily your trial judge. Just find out what are the issues. Very rarely are there attempts to settle because. It's not enough time, number one, and number two, we don't really get too far in the weeds, but the reason we really do it is to certify the case for trial and say how long we need for the trial.

So this is gonna be a one day, two day, three day trial, et cetera. When you get further into the number of days, it's harder to schedule. And then whether or not there's experts or expert reports. So we certify it 

MIC1: for 

trial.

So are you saying like, this is what I plan to 

present 

as evidence? This, these are the witnesses I 

MIC2: not

Not yet.

It's at the regular pretrial conference. At the status conference, there's a one page document that you are obligated to fill out that tells the [00:09:00] court who's the moving party, what's the issue, what do you want, what do they want, and is there drug and alcohol issues? Are there mental health issues, what have you?

So it's a one page document 

MIC1: you 

fill out. 

So you fill it out and then the pro se person fills 

it 

MIC2: out

exchange it, and send it to the 

MIC1: court,

and then you both go to the judge and have this 15 

to 

30 

minute 

MIC2: okay.

And then that's when it gets certified for trial.

So then it gets on the trial list, and then there's the next conference, which is called the pretrial conference. That's where you get into the witnesses. We do maximum of three pages. So people often, if I send them our three page pretrial statement, they're like, but what about this, this, and this?

We only have three pages. Like keep it simple. The real purpose of it is to give the court a maybe even a 50,000 foot view, not a 30,000 foot view of the issues, but most importantly is who are the witnesses, what are your documents? Are there experts? And again, back to the time. How long it's gonna take to try the case.

The witnesses are helpful because what you can say is what's the offer of proof? Which means what are this? Is this person gonna prove? And when someone has like 10 or 15 witnesses, one time I had, someone had [00:10:00] 22, , What are they gonna say that's not duplicative? 'cause the courts only want to hear it once doesn't mean all of us haven't beaten a dead horse.

'cause I know I have. 

But 

not necessarily in the witnesses as, as opposed to the issue. The court they don't need to hear from anybody but mom and dad for the most part. But if they have 15 witnesses, like, what is this person gonna say? And hopefully the judge is like, I don't need to hear from that person.

And if they're pro se, they'll say, you can call them, but it's really not gonna do very much. And if you only have two days, how are you gonna fit this in? So we whittled down the witnesses. And the documents as of now, and I heard there may be a change. There is no obligation to, discovery in custody cases, meaning you don't have an obligation to exchange discovery.

You can currently, if you want something prior to trial, file a motion for that information. But again, this is something an attorney would know and a pro se 

MIC1: person 

wouldn't.

MIC2: For example, if somebody had. Mental health treatment, and I want to see now keeping my mental health records are very protected, rightfully so, but there are certain things that I can ask for.

So this person was inpatient. I wanna see the discharge summary that just shows the diagnosis. 

And 

I 

wanna see 

The [00:11:00] recommendations. 'cause then I wanna know whether or not they're following the 

MIC1: recommendations.

MIC2: So finances don't necessarily come into play too much in family court.

I mean stability, but , people aren't expected to make $200,000 to support a kid. They wanna know, do you have a home roof over your head, clean places for the kids to sleep, et cetera. Well, a good example is I want someone's EZPass records. So I've had that because they wanna show that the person's traveling 

more than 

they're 

saying.

And obviously I can't get that without the other person. 

MIC1: But

you don't have to say give me 

MIC2: everything 

you're

using. Some 

judges will 

make you do it in advance, but not always.

Or sometimes you do it as like a gentleman's handshake. So the trial I had last, summer, we had a gentleman's handshake that we would exchange everything but rebuttal. Meaning if I have something that is gonna rebut something or I think it might, then I don't have to exchange that.

And the judge acknowledged like, there's no order. 'cause I, there was something that I thought was more rebuttal than anything.

MIC1: but

MIC2: The judge was kind of like, look, there's a gentleman's handshake. There's no discovery order, so, so there's no requirement that this happened. So anyway, so there's no, right now there's no requirement and there's no prohibition.

If you haven't exchanged it, sometimes you either agree as counsel. Sometimes the judge makes you, but for the most part, the judges wanna hear as much [00:12:00] information as possible to make their decision. So they're not going to keep evidence out necessarily if it just wasn't exchanged. As long as it's not like 

the smoking 

gun.

They might even allow the smoking gun, but it just depends on the 

The judge and the facts and 

MIC1: people 

just 

depends. So

do you see in a pro se case a lot of that happening, like exchanging if the judge 

MIC2: doesn't 

require 

MIC1: it? No, 

because that's more of like relationships between 

the attorneys 

MIC2: and we wanna streamline things. So, for example, a hearing is a trial. It's just it's more limited issues for the most part. So I have a hearing next week where the attorney said, I wanna call a witness.

That had issued a report and the attorney said, well, do you want me just to stipulate? I'm like, you can stipulate to the report, but I still wanna bring that witness in for limited purposes so we can streamline the hearing by not having to go through the rigmarole of the whole voir dire for the person and their expert opinion and dah, dah, dah da da.

So you can streamline things because ultimately the courts want as an efficient 

MIC1: presentation 

as 

possible.

Well, and it's best for your clients, because they're paying you 

MIC2: by 

the 

hour.

And if you're calling in an an expert, you're also paying them.

MIC1: In the case of pro se, 

now you have one person paying for [00:13:00] time and one person not.

So do you see that it ends up costing the person with the attorney more

MIC2: yes. If it is more costly, which some people actually do to, to screw the other side. And I've had people say they're representing themselves.

You don't have to respond to them. And I'm like, I gotta do, like I, if it's substantive and I have to respond, I have to respond. Just because you don't want me to respond 

doesn't 

mean 

I'm 

not 

gonna 

MIC1: respond



MIC2: But yeah, so I definitely have had people say they're just trying to run up your bill. , If it's a reasonable request question, whatever, then I have to follow the rules of professional responsibility, I have to listen to my client, but I can't also not answer 

like a discovery 

question.

I have a court order that says I have to answer. It's like, you you also have to kind of treat them as the other Yeah, but they have the same obligation, right? They have the same obligations as an attorney. So if an attorney said to me, Hey, you didn't provide to me the 2023 tax return.

If my client says, and there's a court order that says I have to, and the client says, don't answer, I, I have to answer. The court order says we have to provide it. If we didn't provide it, if it was another attorney, I would say, if that's correct, my bad. Obviously I'd say it more professional, we'll get it to you.

Something like that. , That's a silly, example in a way, because. Most of the time people are gonna tell me [00:14:00] not to respond to somebody for a tax return. But sometimes they'll tell me not to respond 

MIC1: on 

things 

that 

I have 

to respond.

I can see how frustrating that would be as the person paying because it's like they don't care if this takes forever.

They don't care if it's three extra days in the trial. '

MIC2: Cause 

they're not 

MIC1: anyone. 

So then let's fast forward pretrial conference. Everyone's like, we're going forward. Does not settle. 

MIC2: We're 

going 

in front 

of 

MIC1: judge. 

How does that go when you have someone, pro se, 'cause now we're talking about having to present evidence.

How do they know even how to conduct 

themselves in 

the courtroom? 

how do they know, like how to address the judge and when it's their turn and when they're supposed to say 

MIC2: objection.

Well, that's the problem. When you have a person representing themselves and they're the moving party.

They get on the witness stand and it's almost like they just start talking, , no one's asking them questions 'cause they can't question themselves. Let's say the person's going up there and saying, well I went to the school and when I spoke to the teacher and they said I'm gonna object hearsay 'cause there's no question in front of them, but that's hearsay.

And 

I would be sustained. Meaning , the court would agree with me. So it's weird 'cause they just start talking. It's like a monologue basically that I have to interject. At times, the judges will often interject and [00:15:00] ask them questions if they are going 

MIC1: too 

far down 

the

MIC2: path and try 

to help guide it. Yeah.

And that's when the person is taking the stand. But to your question. question. When the other side is taking the stand and I ask that side questions, and then they're subject to cross-examination. Look, lawyers are bad at cross-examination, let alone pro se people. So you're not allowed to be argumentative with witnesses while they're 

MIC1: cross-examined.

In this case it's could very likely be ex-husband, ex-wife, cross-examining each other. 

MIC2: Right. And victims of abuse and abusers. So 

that's, 

that's 

a 

big 

issue. Manipulation. 

Yeah. 

So you're obligated to know the rules of evidence and keep in mind if you don't object to something, and 

MIC1: obviously 

something even if 

MIC2: you You can't then later appeal it.

You 

can't say, 

oh, I 

should 

have objected. I



MIC2: You have to preserve the record. That's why when you hear attorneys saying, I gotta preserve the record, so for example, the case where the report may come in, the judge has said he is reading the report.

It's hearsay. Prior at the trial, I 

MIC1: will 

object ' 

MIC2: cause I have to preserve 

the record, 

I object to the court reviewing the report. There is nobody here to authenticate. The person's not here to testify. It's a hearsay document. I object. 

MIC1: The 

judge 

lets 

it 

MIC2: in. That's an 

appeal 

issue, right? It's not, but 

if I don't [00:16:00] object, it's 

not an appeal issue.

It's not documented that you brought 

that up and you Correct. Correct. 

MIC1: court 

reporter 

writing 

everything 

down.

So , how does it normally go? From your just opinion, not even as the other side. , Are you just like, oh my God, why didn't they, they 

MIC2: should 

have 

object 

objected 

that 

like

there Oh, it's painful.

It's the best way to put it. It's painful. It's painful for everybody involved. It's painful for the person representing themselves. It's painful for the attorney. 

MIC1: It's 

painful 

for the 

court,

'Cause even the judge is probably just like, oh my God. 'cause 

MIC2: they 

can't 

tell 

them 

what 

to 

do 

either.

Right?

Painful. It's kind of like whatever 

MIC1: you 

do 

MIC2: for 

a job, 

ask somebody else to do it. Who knows, no idea what you're doing. And it 

is 

beyond 

frustrating. 

You wouldn't 

MIC1: me to do brain surgery, 

right? Or just like stand there and be like, tell me what to do. And then they're like, okay, wrong tool Go get the the other 

MIC2: one.

Admittedly, it's not life or death. I acknowledge my job is not life or

death? 

I'm gonna go ask somebody who knows about taxes in a minute. I can review a tax return. I think I got everything that I need to address, but I'm gonna go ask an expert. Right? Even though I am quite proficient at tax returns at this point.

But you wouldn't want me filing your taxes. I, I assure you of that. Even though I can read a tax return, even though I can read a profit and loss, I can read a Schedule C, I 

can 

do 

all 

MIC1: those 

things. 

That 

does 

not 

mean 

I 

should 

be 

[00:17:00] doing 

it,

but 

you might 

do better 

than 

me. 

But is that worth 

MIC2: audited 

over? ? 

MIC1: Maybe one pro se person could do better than another pro se person.

Like maybe they could hold their own, but it's still not gonna be as good. 

MIC2: You're 

not 

gonna 

get 

as 

good 

of 

an 

outcome 

no 

matter 

what. Even

lawyers that I've seen 

represent 

themselves 

don't do 

a 

good 

job.

It's too personal. It's too emotional. You also don't have somebody to help filter out. Like there are 

times 

when I'm sitting in court, if you ever come and watch a hearing, I always give people a pen and paper. To write what they wanna say to me. So I'm not listening to them whispering because their agenda I often have to filter out.

And in that situation where the person's pro se, they have nobody filtering out that agenda and usually they end up hanging themselves. 

That's the best part. They usually end 

up 

MIC1: saying 

things 

that help 

the 

other side's 

case.

'Cause do you usually then say to them

don't 

bring 

that 

up.

MIC2: That's not

relevant.

I remember looking at my client, my last trial and I said, this is why we don't need every.

A darn 

thing 

proven by a text message or an Our Family Wizard message because the, case was, let me show you this message. Let 

MIC1: me 

show 

you 

this 

MIC2: Your testimony is evidence.

So the client was like, I have this message, I have that message. I was like, oh my God, I don't need your goddamn messages. I just [00:18:00] need you to get on the witness stand and testify to it. If there is an issue about the 

MIC1: credibility 

of 

that, 

then 

I 

have 

that to 

back it 

up.

But,

so now 

let's 

say the pro se 

person. 

It does do that. They're like, let's go over this message, let's go over that. , Does the judge stop them and say 

MIC2: it, 

or do 

you 

have 

to 

sit 

through 

it 

and 

be 

like, 

oh 

my 

God,

the latter. Sometimes the judge will say, I don't need to hear everything, and they just kind of try to push it along.

And sometimes I'll say, your Honor, this is duplicative. 

Objection, 

asked 

and 

answered, 

whatever. 

MIC1: So Sometimes it's like 

that's 

MIC2: giving 

too 

much of a hint,

They are entitled to put their case on.

I can object if it's irrelevant. I can object if it's been asked and answered. Can object. It's hearsay. I can object and say, your Honor, this at this point is duplicative, meaning irrelevant. So that's an irrelevance objection. But I can't do their job for 

them. 

I will try to expedite things because it's my 

client's 

money.



MIC2: But if I don't have a real objection, 

then 

I'm 

kind 

of 

just sitting 

there like, 

Okay. here we go. 

MIC1: I can see that being very frustrating. And then the last question is how do the outcomes usually go? Have you ever seen a pro se case go well that you didn't expect?

I'm sure you see them not go well, but what are some of the extremes 

that 

you 

can think 

of 

MIC2: in 

[00:19:00] those 

kinds 

of 

cases?

. I can't think of one in the past that's popping into my head. But here's the thing. 

MIC1: Facts when cases, 

MIC2: Lawyers' jobs 

are to get the right facts in front of the judge with, the argument to try to persuade the judge on their position. So if a pro se person gets the right facts, doesn't mean they're not 

MIC1: gonna 

get 

a 

decent outcome.

MIC2: But, 

and this is just my experience, I'm not saying this is statistically true. More often than not, those who represent themselves, there's usually a mental health component. 

And 

so 

MIC1: the 

mental 

MIC2: component. 

MIC1: Is 

a, 

is 

a 

factor.

They can't be objective. 

MIC2: It'd 

be hard 

to 

MIC1: be 

objective anyway.

But 

let's talk about 

run 

of the mill 

narcissists. They 

do think like 

they 

didn't 

do 

anything 

wrong, 

MIC2: it's usually I 

just 

need to 

sit there and let 

them keep going. 

'cause I'm 

gonna be like, 

MIC1: okay, 

keep 

doing 

my 

job 

for 

me.



MIC2: The lawyer's job we are generally a filter system. , To get the best facts in front of people 

that.

The judges are the hearing officers that need to come in, and our job is to filter it. And when people don't have that attorney, there's no filter. And usually there are issues underlying that they won't listen to an attorney. , Another lawyer in my office today came in and , she said, because I've.

Hopefully taught her well, like you're not paying me [00:20:00] to tell you what you wanna hear. I'm telling you what you need to hear. So if they didn't like what an attorney was saying, like filtering things out, et cetera, then that's why they potentially fired a lawyer and think they know better.

Are 

you 

seeing 

a 

trend 

with 

more 

pro 

se

Well, 

yes, 

in our county, the uptick in custody trials because of Caden's law, number one. And then also because of the change in our rules, there are a lot more court and people can't pay for more court. So there is an uptick.

Like I said, I can't remember off the top of my head if I've had a custody 

trial. 

MIC1: But 

MIC2: I 

have 

two 

coming 

up, 

and that's a lot. That's a lot for me. , I can't think of one before that. I've had people come into Custody conferences, which are non records, so there's less issues of evidence, but.

I've had a lot of those, but those are different because it's non record. It's just people talking they're more just 

just like one

MIC1: off,

MIC2: situations, 

right?

Yeah. Or they're, excusing things like, oh, well of course I had a AR 15 in my kids' bedroom closet.

It's a true story, 

MIC1: some 

MIC2: excuse. I'm like, okay, keep 

talking. 

I actually have told people I've won a contempt hearing. If, you know, the hearing officer does contempt in Chester County, he is, I always lovingly refer to him as a soup Nazi from Seinfeld.

It's like. The al's [00:21:00] nothing say nothing. Only if you're called with the counter and you just say the soup you want, you keep going. But the other side was pro se and person kept 

MIC1: talking 

and 

I 

think 

I said 

MIC2: four 

words 

and 

we 

won 

four, four 

words. Even if it wasn't the soup Nazi person, the person just kept talking and helping me, right. So I was like, okay, keep talking. 

And 

I said, 

four, four.

I 

don't 

remember 

what 

they 

were. 

the Highest good morning, your Honor. I don't know. It was something, but yes, it was crazy.

MIC1: My recommendation is hire a lawyer.

MIC2: I actually saw in a tattoo shop when I took my daughters to get their second piercing in their ear. It 

MIC1: was like 

MIC2: if 

you 

want it I, 

something 

about 

cheap 

and 

then 

fixing 

it 

or 

something 

like 

that. 

Yeah. 

It 

was 

like, 

if 

you 

want 

it 

cheap, 

I'll 

fix 

it 

later, 

or something like that. And I was like, that's so spot on.

It doesn't just apply to, lawyers. I mean, you go, oh, well this person's doing a tattoo for $25. The other place is $200. And then guess what? You're now paying the 25 and the 200. 

Now 

you 

just 

cost yourself 

more fixing 

MIC1: it. 

Or 

MIC2: There is a person that I know of 

that represented themselves 

in 

five years ago 

or 

so. 

They said, I'll waive my right to my kids, give the person the other side sole legal, sole physical custody.

And then they were like, oh, well what was I thinking? And it took them five years [00:22:00] of attorneys fees, et cetera, to get the,, the issue fixed. Whereas have they , did it right from the first time, it would've been a lot less. That's like the bar exam. I don't think 

I have the t-shirt 

anymore, 

but 

I 

remember 

the 

t-shirt.

MIC1: Do 

it 

once, 

do 

it 

right. 

Never do 

it 

again. it's just so 

MIC2: easier to 

MIC1: keep 

custody 

than 

give 

it 

up 

and then 

MIC2: try 

to 

claw 

it 

back. 

I'm 

sure.

I mean, 

that's 

the exception 

for people to 

do that. But yes. 

Do you 

wanna talk 

really 

quick about 

criminal 

cases 

and 

pro se?

Obviously people represent themselves sometimes in criminal 

most of the time I ever recall seeing it was DUIs. I haven't practiced criminal law in 16 plus years, so I could be using terms like I know that we used to have a program called IPP, I forget what it's called now, but it's not.

The same one, but I do know a RD is the same. So a RD stands for the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program, whereas if you get a first offense, DUI, and it's pretty benign, no one's hurt, nothing injured, nothing damaged, you can get a RD, which means your case is suspended, for lack of a better word, for six months or whatever you do.

Community, service, service, 

MIC1: et cetera. 

MIC2: And 

then 

your case can, can be dismissed and you can have it expunged. It's expunged for everybody else. Police and law enforcement can always find it for, 

MIC1: if 

you 

got 

a 

second 

DUI, 

then 

it 

MIC2: be [00:23:00] a second 

offense 

and 

we 

look 

a 

10 

year look back. That's a great program. 'cause people make mistakes. So I can think of a case where the guy came in and I don't remember if it was a second or third, DUI, within 10 years. Or he didn't get an a RD program for some reason, but I remember saying like, it's a , statutory minimum of 72 hours in prison, 72 hours to six months, whatever it was, and I remember him having such hesitation to trust me.

Understandably so. I, I was the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I was the da and I remember saying to him, and I mean this, it's my job to protect everybody, including the defendants who walk in that courtroom. That was a lot different. 'cause I kind of said I would sort of take advantage in custody, meaning like, I'm not gonna tell them all the rules, but I did feel very strongly that my job as a DA was to protect everybody's rights, including 

this 

gentleman's '

cause I, 

represent the Commonwealth. . He's a part of 

the Commonwealth. 

And I said, I'm not giving you anything. I wouldn't give anybody else. 

MIC1: Right. I'm 

telling 

you this 

MIC2: the statutory minimum. 

Feel free to look it up.

Obviously get a lawyer and I remember feeling very strongly about that.

I support the Second Amendment. I, I don't like guns, but I have to protect the Second Amendment. Now, do I agree with Justice Scalia that says that we should be able to restrict them as [00:24:00] every other f fundamental right is yes, with the least 

MIC1: restrictive alternative, blah, 

MIC2: blah, blah, blah B, but if 

MIC1: you don't 

protect 

every 

right, 

you 

protect 

no 

one's

Right? 

MIC2: It's like saying, it's okay to go and.

Detain this person 'cause they're quote unquote illegal. Well, once you start not following the constitutional rules, just because it's this person who you say is here illegally, it opens the door for them not following the rules against you. That's what people don't understand. That once you say it's okay to say for the government to restrict 

this 

MIC1: person's 

right, '

cause 

you 

don't 

like 

what 

they said, 

now 

they can 

restrict your.

Speech

I'm sure you're very familiar with this being a da, they say, there's certain things police try to get you to say that you don't need to say, people answer questions when they shouldn't.

So I can't imagine being picked up off the street and 

MIC2: truly not 

knowing what 

my 

rights 

really 

are or 

not because 

they 

try to 

pressure you 

into 

doing 

things

MIC1: Like if I got pulled over for a traffic stop and 

they were asking me questions I would feel like I had to answer. And I know that, and I don't know all the ins 

and 

outs, but there's certain 

things 

you don't 

have to 

answer.

And then are you being suspicious?

MIC2: So I always tell people this. Number one, the Miranda warnings only come into play when you are in custody.

And being questioned. , Those are the triggers. You're in custody, which means you're not free to leave, which is why [00:25:00] you'll often see police officers put people in a room and leave the door open and 

say, you're free to 

go, but 

let me ask you a few questions. 

They didn't 

have 

to 

give 

you 

the Miranda 

warnings there.

My next advice is now I have 

young 

drivers, 

and I will tell my kids, you always cooperate appropriately. If you're speeding.

Yep. I was going 70 

and a 55. 

My 

bad. 

I'm not 

talking 

about 

Always cooperate with law enforcement, you always cooperate. That doesn't mean you overly cooperate. . Over cooperation 

is, Hey, I 

wanna search 

your trunk. No. The answer is no. You need a search warrant.

You need to have probable cause that a crime has been committed and just. Pulling me over for speeding does not give them probable cause to search my trunk. So 

do not 

let police 

officers 

just 

search 

your 

trunk. 

And 

most 

kids, 

people will go, okay, 

now 

99% 

of the time there's probably 

nothing 

in 

the 

trunk. Right. 

But that's not the point. 

It's protecting 

your right to be. You have the right to not 

have 

to 

be 

searched and 

MIC1: see.

MIC2: unless 

there is 

probable cause. 

MIC1: I am a woman. And 

MIC2: people 

pleaser. 

So 

MIC1: I 

would 

think , 

well, 

it's 

more 

suspicious.

If 

I 

say 

MIC2: no, 

then 

they're gonna 

arrest 

me.

And you blame your lawyer. My lawyer said to say, no, say I am not supposed to consent to a search. I'm serious of a trunk unless you [00:26:00] have probable cause and a search warrant. So I am following her advice, right? Admit 

MIC1: you 

sped 

because 

MIC2: what? They're probably gonna be 

like, 

all 

right, 

I'll, 

let 

you 

go, 

whatever.

MIC1: I Got pulled over two years for looking 

MIC2: at my phone 

in 

Delaware. 

I didn't know 

Delaware. 

How to know, I 

didn't know Delaware 

had 

to know 

MIC1: at a 

at a light. 

MIC2: Right. At a light. 

Yep. You 

weren't 

driving 

and

looking. I was 

not.

Correct. I was sitting at a light 

and I, 

ridiculous.

Pennsylvania just 

started 

that 

MIC1: and it's 

MIC2: anyway.

With little drivers, I support not having anybody. 

Get 

killed. 

So 

I 

Well,

am just mean when you're stopped at a light. Sure. I

agree. So in this case, it was two years ago, Delaware. I didn't know they had the law, but I was sitting at a light and I looked at my phone.

I wasn't even texting. I just looked to see what was coming in. 'cause I've always been pretty good at not texting and driving. 

MIC1: it's very automatic 

when 

MIC2: you 

stop 

to 

just 

be 

MIC1: like, 

oh, did I miss any text because you're 

MIC2: did I miss any text because well, I knew I 

was 

missing 

texts. 

I saw 

them going 

in, but I didn't 

at them. is there anything important? 

Yeah.

, I didn't know it 'cause I'm an idiot and the police officer was next to me.

So I get pulled over and he goes, do you know why I pulled you over? And I go. 

I don't, but I'm gonna guess I picked up my phone and that's not allowed here. I think that's kind of what I said. 

MIC1: And 

MIC2: is like, that's right. They just had 

started a 

law 

and 

maybe 

there 

was even, 

there's 

a period of 

time 

where they give 

you a 

warning, he asked for my license and registration, I cooperated and I said, for [00:27:00] what it's worth, I wasn't texting, I was looking, that was wrong. I did not know. 

And I apologized 

and he 

was like, 

okay, 

have 

a 

good 

day. 

That was it. Because 

I 

cooperate had I been like, screw you, blah, blah, blah. God knows 

what he would've done. 

So I'm not talking about that type of cooperation. . 'Cause again, your constitutional rights are only 

really 

MIC1: triggered 

by 

when 

the 

government 

tries 

MIC2: to 

restrict 

them.

So, 

I 

can 

go 

search 

my kids' 

stuff. They 

don't 

have 

the right of free speech, 

although 

Molly 

Pots does talk very freely and I give up. There's triggers that I'm talking about, but yes. For the purposes of somebody wanting to 

search 

your 

trunk, 

no.

Search your car. No. Now if they see pot 

in plain 

view, that's 

MIC1: different. 

Now only 

have 

MIC2: cause to 

search. But 

then 

MIC1: let '

'em 

get 

the 

search 

warrant still. 

MIC2: Yeah. Alright, 

well 

this 

is 

very 

good. 

All right. Thank you. 

MIC1: all the pro se info. 

In conclusion, 

you probably shouldn't 

MIC2: do 

it.

Yeah. 

MIC1: Don't 

do it.



MIC2: just 

say 

MIC1: S bite the bullet 

and 

pay for 

an attorney.

It's gonna save you money 

in the long

run. Then they're done Now that sucks, But yeah,

do 

it once. Do it 

right. 

Never do 

it 

again.

All right. Thanks 

Julie. Thanks Anne. Bye. Bye. Thanks Anne. Bye. Bye.