Sometimes those that have read a number of novels, the kind that focus on a courtroom decision, think that the past reading material has given them a thorough understanding of personal injury law. Formation of such an idea can be costly. It can encourage the pursuit of an attempt at self-representation, during a personal injury lawsuit.

Nature of typical pitfalls

Someone with a personal injury claim fails to see the wisdom behind settling, as opposed to allow the case to go to trial. At a trial the outcome is uncertain. The person that has filed the claim may not know what evidence to present in court. Alternately, the person that has filed the claim may not know how to present the selected evidence.

Benefits sacrificed by a former client, one that tries self-representation

In the absence of a Personal Injury Lawyer in Saint John, it becomes more difficult to obtain reports from experts. Such reports can be used to counter the evidence introduced by the defendant’s legal team.

An injury lawyer has learned how to negotiate with an insurance company. If negotiations reach an impasse, a lawyer might consider arranging for a mediation session. That is a good alternative to the prospect of going to court. A mediator can help with creation of a workable solution. A personal injury lawyer might write a letter that a given client can give to the judge. That option gets taken off the table, if a former client has chosen to pursue self-representation.

One time when it might act to a plaintiff’s advantage, if that same plaintiff has tried self-representation.

If the plaintiff has to rely on the words of a courtroom interpreter, that might make self-representation seem like a logical approach. The judge can speak to the plaintiff through the interpreter. The judge does not have to get the opinion of the plaintiff’s lawyer, as well as the translation of the plaintiff’s argument.

In other words, a message gets sent directly to the members of the court. It does not get filtered by an attorney. A direct message always seems clearer than one that functions as a reinterpretation of someone else’s statements.

There is another possible solution that should not be ruled out. The plaintiff that has rejected a lawyer might care to hire a paralegal, one that understands and speaks the plaintiff’s language. Then the paralegal could function as both an interpreter and a source of legal advice.

This approach has been tried in a large city, one with a very diverse population. The paralegal’s client, the defendant was pleased with the results. The plaintiff was disappointed with the judge’s decision. Still, a different decision could have dissolved the friendship that had developed between the defendant and the bilingual paralegal.