If you sue a company in small claims court can they bring a lawyer?

[usmc-sooner]

Does everyone named in the lawsuit have to appear in small claims?

[olevetonahill]

Does everyone named in the lawsuit have to appear in small claims?
Any one can bring a shark
and ALL have to respond .
Those that dont show up Lose , you win
then They bring thier Pet shark to the party and and Its all fun and games .
:eek: :pop:

[usmc-sooner]

if the lawyer is not named in the lawsuit can he/she appear and argue on the def's behalf.

[OUstudent4life]

Friend of mine sued Microsoft in small claims court. He won. :D

Lawyers have too much time on their hands, methinks.

'course, here I am posting...

[olevetonahill]

if the lawyer is not named in the lawsuit can he/she appear and argue on the def's behalf.
Yup
I had a judgement Won against a dude . 3500 bucks
at the Asset hearing He shows up with his shark . No papre work . THAT the court Ordered him to have .
The Honarable peace of shat awardeds me 83 bucks . :eek:
Sue em ALL let God sort em out !
:cool:

[jk the sooner fan]

if you sue an insurance company, you can bet they'll bring a lawyer, maybe even two of em!

[AlbqSooner]

If you sue a corporation in small claims or any other court and a corporate officer (non-lawyer) shows up you can make the argument that such officer's appearance in court on behalf of the corporation constitutes the unlicensed practice of law. I have sold this argument in Florida Courts on several occasions. They cannot speak on behalf of the corp. Therefore, the evidence on behalf of my client is the only evidence and we win. YAY!

[crawfish]

Only if he's a midget lawyer.

[Okla-homey]

There is another side to this. I have a friend who works in a firm that recently got whipped by a pro se plaintiff in federal court! It was a civil rights case in which the plaintiff, a large white woman, was purportedly fired because she was shacked-up with a black guy. She won a $300K award.

Anyhoo, it seems the judge was extremely deferential to the plaintiff because she was all pitiful and procedurally clueless. That prompted repeated and incessant objections by the lawyer (who was bound to make them for the record) which made her seem like a ripe asshat to the jury for beating up on this pathetic and quivering tub of goo of a plaintiff.

I would not, however, recommend this strategy to similarly situated plaintiffs. As the great one once said, "A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client."

I'd bet anything it will be remanded on appeal.

[TUSooner]

There is another side to this. I have a friend who works in a firm that recently got whipped by a pro se plaintiff in federal court! It was a civil rights case in which the plaintiff, a large white woman, was purportedly fired because she was shacked-up with a black guy. She won a $300K award.

Anyhoo, it seems the judge was extremely deferential to the plaintiff because she was all pitiful and procedurally clueless. That prompted repeated and incessant objections by the lawyer (who was bound to make them for the record) which made her seem like a ripe asshat to the jury for beating up on this pathetic and quivering tub of goo of a plaintiff.

I would not, however, recommend this strategy to similarly situated plaintiffs. As the great one once said, "A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client."

I'd bet anything it will be remanded on appeal.

Heh. I wouldn't bet much though! (unless there was some real substantive legal-type boo-boo). The district court should get lots of deference on handling the procedural stuff.