Why do lawyers not represent themselves in their own areas of expertise?

Question

I understand why a criminal defense lawyer would not represent himself in a personal injury case, or a patent attorney would not defend herself against criminal charges. But why wouldn't a criminal defense lawyer defend himself in a criminal case, or a personal injury lawyer represent herself in a personal injury case?

Answer 1

Before you act, it’s Prudence soberly to consider; for after Action you cannot recede without dishonour: Take the Advice of some Prudent Friend; for he who will be his own Counsellour, shall be sure to have a Fool for his Client.

Conventional wisdom has strongly disfavored this since at least 1682 when William De Britaine made the statement above in his book “Humane Prudence, or, The Art by which a Man May Raise Himself and Fortune to Grandeur”. Other notable figures have reiterated that advice since then.

The modern language of the saying that "A man who represents himself, has a fool for a client," is often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, although the attribution is probably false.

Practically speaking, one reason is that it doesn't work very well to elicit testimony from yourself as opposed to a third-party at trial. Another is that a lawyer is stronger when the lawyer's personal credibility isn't subject to being questioned in the case. A third is that it is hard to exercise independent judgment in an accurate fashion when you own case is involved. A fourth is that negotiations are often easier when made through third-parties.

This said, lawyers do routinely represent themselves in areas where they have expertise anyway. It is arguably unwise, but it is rarely, if ever, legally prohibited or improper. Indeed, generally speaking, everyone has a legal right to represent themselves without a separate lawyer. Sometimes the cost or the concern about trusting someone else with their own case will prevail over conventional wisdom.

Answer 2

As a lawyer and as a client you will have different expectations from a court case. The clients expectations might be more based on wishful thinking, while the lawyer should have an objective and realistic view of the case. And you wouldn’t want a lawyer who handles a case based on wishful thinking.

A good lawyer will know this and realise that being both lawyer and client will keep them from doing the best possible job, and any equally qualified lawyer will do a better job. For example, the client may have evidence of their innocence, but because the lawyer being the same person knows the evidence, he misses asking about it, writing it down, and telling the court. A beginner’s mistake that no other lawyer would make.

Answer 3

Here's a famous counter example. Jonathan Sumption QC (as he then was) represented himself in R (Sumption) v Greenwich LBC [2007] EWHC 2776 (Admin), [2008] P & CR 20 (25 March 2015)".

See also https://redd.it/w90miy.

Lord Sumption was justice on the UK Supreme Court, and non permanent judge on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.

Before joining the supreme court, Sumption was one of the most successful and highly paid barristers in London, becoming the first justice ever to be appointed to the court directly from the Bar. Sometimes described as "the cleverest man in Britain", his high-profile cases included representing Roman Abramovich against fellow Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky.

Answer 4

Even in their own areas of expertise, lawyers generally avoid representing themselves due to the challenges of staying objective. For example, a criminal defense lawyer representing themselves in their own criminal case may struggle to maintain emotional distance, which could lead to poor strategic decisions or missing critical legal arguments. Similarly, a personal injury lawyer handling their own case may overestimate the strength of their evidence or fail to negotiate effectively due to personal bias.

Credibility is another issue—when a criminal defense lawyer defends themselves, it could make their arguments appear less impartial to a jury, especially if they need to testify. For a personal injury lawyer, representing themselves might create similar challenges during negotiations or in court, as opposing parties could question their objectivity. Additionally, having a third-party advocate is often more effective for presenting testimony, building a case strategy, and negotiating settlements. While lawyers have the legal right to represent themselves, the risks often outweigh the benefits, even in cases where they have expertise.

Answer 5

A counter example is Jason L. Crawford, vs. Meta Platforms Inc., d/b/a Facebook, Civil Action No. SC2022CV001070 filed at State Court of Muscogee County, Georgia. Crawford couldn't have known that he'd get default judgment, as Meta is defending a similar action by Ming Ye and Mearth e-Scooters in Australia. Judge Andrew Prather made “the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:”

        In or around August of 2022, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s Facebook account for no valid reason. Defendant failed to allow Plaintiff to obtain an explanation for the termination, except for vague pieces of information purportedly accusing Plaintiff of some sort of exploitative behavior on the site. This behavior never occurred, and Facebook's conduct was undertaken in violation of the site's duty to exercise ordinary care towards its customers. This is specifically true since Facebook knows that it is often the repository of large amounts of date, in the form of photographs, videos and narrative content. Plaintiff had much of the data documenting his life for the last thirteen years on his Facebook page.
        Defendant failed to do a reasonable job of training its employees or programming its algorithms in order to fairly assess whether users actually violated Facebook's terms of service. Facebook likewise failed to do a reasonable job of allowing users to question and/or appeal the seemingly random, but definitely unsupported, findings of Face books algorithms. Consequently, Plaintiff has been denied access to photographs, data, and content documenting the last decade-plus of his life.

        Plaintiff's injuries and damages, as hereinabove described, were directly and proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has endured great mental pain since Facebook unjustifiably and unreasonably shut down his account and that his pain and suffering will likely continue. The Court further concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to just and adequate compensation for his injuries and for his past and future damages.

JUDGMENT

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Plaintiff Jason L. Crawford have and recover judgment against Defendant damages in the sum of $50,000.00, as damages to compensate him for his injuries, including past and future mental pain and suffering. Costs of bringing this action are hereby assessed against Defendant.

“When I finally spoke with a human, Facebook never offered a single penny, even though I had a $50,000 judgment against them. They simply went back to ignoring me,” Crawford wrote on his Facebook account. “Well, it turns out they bank with Bank of America. We garnished their account, and just like that, I collected the entire judgment with interest.” The check was written out by the Clerk of Superior and State Court in Muscogee County, which Bank of America paid the money to, according to Crawford.