Why You Should Never Represent Yourself in a Maryland Personal Injury Lawsuit

Although Maryland allows any person to represent themselves in a lawsuit, it is generally not a good idea. This is especially true when it comes to something like a personal injury case. For example, if you have been seriously injured in a car accident and wish to sue the negligent driver, you are far more likely to obtain a better outcome if you work with an experienced accident lawyer.

There are a few reasons for this. For one thing, most self-represented litigants are easily overwhelmed by the legal process. They may miss an important filing deadline or fail to perform their due diligence before initiating a case. Or they may be simply too quick to settle a claim for far less than it might be worth.

Appeals Court Dismisses Self-Represented Plaintiff’s Premature Appeal

The problem is that if you decide to represent yourself and you are unhappy with the outcome, it can be difficult to do anything about it after the fact. A recent decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Lockett v. DeCleene, offers a cautionary tale in this regard. In this case, a self-represented plaintiff tried to undo a personal injury settlement that she felt pressured into agreeing to by the trial judge.

The plaintiff represented herself throughout the trial process. Initially, she requested a jury trial, which was scheduled for June 2021. About a month beforehand, the defendant filed a motion with the judge to prevent the plaintiff from presenting any evidence to the jury with respect to her estimated “future damages.” The defense argued this was justified because the plaintiff had failed to comply with various pre-trial discovery requests and disclosure deadlines to present such evidence.

The judge conducted a pretrial status conference. At this meeting, the defense said it had offered to settle the plaintiff’s case for $40,000 but she refused. The judge told the plaintiff that he planned to grant the defense’s motion to exclude her evidence on future damages and that would “limit” how much she could expect to receive from a jury verdict. The judge then asked the plaintiff if she would “reconsider” her refusal of the settlement offer.

The plaintiff told the judge it was “probably in her best interest” to accept and that she had “no choice actually but to feel comfortable” with the offer given the judge’s impending decision. The judge did suggest the plaintiff “talk to a lawyer,” but she apparently did not. The judge took that to mean the plaintiff accepted the settlement offer and took the case off the trial docket.

Normally, a settlement involved both parties filing a “stipulated dismissal” of the lawsuit. In this case, that did not happen. Instead, the plaintiff filed a new document effectively requesting “reversal” of the settlement offer. She also filed an appeal.

The Court of Special Appeals, however, dismissed the appeal as untimely. Technically, the case remains pending before the trial court as no final judgment was entered. Indeed, the question of whether the plaintiff actually entered into a binding settlement agreement has not been resolved. The plaintiff’s appeal largely consisted of complaints about the trial judge’s conduct at the pretrial conference. The Court of Special Appeals noted that it was “not the forum for complaints of that nature.”

Contact Waldorf Accident Lawyer Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.

Source:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5196609041306332526