[WSBAPT] Receipt of unfiled answer from pro se defendant
Andrekita Silva
ak at seattle-silvalaw.com
Tue Jul 16 19:30:01 PDT 2019
Law Office of
F.ANDREKITA SILVA
________________________________________________________________________
July 16, 2019
Joyce,
I agree with Eric that the action you take in
response should depend on the specific situation.
At minimum, I would contact the pro se defendant / Respondent by email
(not by phone), say 1) I got your mail, 2) I don’t represent you , 3)
if you want the court to consider you Answer, you will need to file
it with the court as required by civil rules and /AS SET FORTH IN THE
SUMMONS/.
(Practically, courts have gone different ways on whether an informal
letter showing disagreement/ intent to defend is enough to protect a
litigant from default – so I would not seek a default if the person
had sent me an informal letter indicating an intent to defend. I would
try to get that person to comply with the civil rules without doing it
for them unless it benefited my client.)
In a civil matter, my summons tells the Defendant that
1) they must Answer within XX days, and 2) that the original Answer
must be filed with the Clerk’s office with a copy on me. In a family
law matter, the Summons which is a mandatory form has extremely
detailed information about where to secure a form to Answer/ Respond,
how to file it, how to serve it, etc. , tells them they don’t have to
consult with a lawyer but says it’s a good idea, etc.
I have had an occasional client ask why they are billed
for time spent speaking to the opposing party (their spouse). I let
them know I must deal with a pro se spouse exactly as I would an
opposing counsel. If an OP abuses my time by calling to complain of my
client, and not for some valid purpose, then I ask them to communicate
by email only. So, in regards to procedural matters, I give OP basic
info necessary to avoid a mess down the road, which could cause my
client to incur fees unnecessarily. But not so much that my client
feels like I am working for the wrong person.
Also, some OP’s can say the darndest things. I once had
a pro se OP claim that I had mediated between he and his ex partner
and so, had to be removed as my client’s lawyer due to a conflict of
interest. In fact, prior to him filing his about 4th modification
action, I had tried to negotiate a resolution with him on behalf of my
client (who had a ‘no contact’ order against this guy) and I had been
aggressively representing her in actions involving him for about 15
years. So, it is important to be cautious.
andrekita
Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, Washington 98101
206-224-8288
www.seattle-silvalaw.com
Quoting Eric Nelsen <Eric at sayrelawoffices.com>:
> Krista--I should clarify, on occasion I have filed a pro se's
> document, but only as an exhibit to my own declaration concerning
> the nature of contacts with the defendant and not as a substantive
> pleading, and expressly reserving the right to move to strike and
> all rights to challenge its sufficiency under Civil Rules and other
> applicable law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think that RPC 4.3[1] (dealing with pro se parties) can be a
> trap if we just file stuff for non-clients. I don't want a pro se
> coming back and claiming that, for example, after I filed their
> first pleading for them they just thought they could rely on me to
> file whatever they send to me. Such an assertion would almost
> certainly be tactical BS but I don't want to hand them that
> leverage. Pro se parties are hard enough to deal with.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And in litigation, the importance of an Answer to Complaint is
> quite a bit greater than, say, some random letter submitted in
> response to a motion. If I see a tactical advantage to my client
> from an unfiled Answer, I don't want to give that up.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It also matters to me what kind of pro se I am dealing with, and
> what the dispute is about. Some parties have reasonable positions
> and fair arguments, and the best route for my client is to move
> things forward to review by the court. I might facilitate the other
> side's filing in that case. But some pro se parties are obstructive,
> obtuse and obstreperous, and are advancing some lame legal claim
> just to be extortionate or annoying, and I wouldn't even take their
> phone call, much less help with a filing. If I can cut them off at
> the knees, I will.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course this is all subject always to duties of candor to the
> tribunal, fairness to opposing parties, and so forth--I would never
> conceal anything, but I also don't want to guide a pro se into
> mounting a more effective defense against my client.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric C. Nelsen
>
>
>
> SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
>
>
>
> 1417 31st Ave South
>
>
>
> Seattle WA 98144-3909
>
>
>
> phone 206-625-0092
>
>
>
> fax 206-625-9040
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FROM: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] ON BEHALF OF Krista
> MacLaren
> SENT: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 3:09 PM
> TO: wsba probate & trust
> SUBJECT: Re: [WSBAPT] Receipt of unfiled answer from pro se defendant
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> When this has happened to me I have put a coversheet on it
> stating that I received it from the pro se and it was not previously
> filed, and I have filed it, probably via electronic filing. I have
> considered this my duty as an officer of the court, though Eric
> makes me wonder if that is misguided. Still, I would probably do
> this the next time as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Krista J. MacLaren
> Attorney at Law
> Northgate Executive Center II
> 9725 3rd Ave NE, Suite 600
> Seattle WA 98115
> (206) 523-6116
> kjm.inc at icloud.com
>
> Please note, as with most email providers, Mac does not encrypt
> email messages. Accordingly, the confidentiality of messages sent to
> this address cannot be assured. This e-mail is intended for viewing
> only by the individual or entity to whom its content is addressed,
> and it may contain confidential or privileged information. If you
> received this email in error, please honor the privacy of the
> intended recipient: reply to the sender regarding the error and
> delete the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2019, at 1:46 PM, JOYCE SCHWENSEN
> <Joyce at schwensenlaw.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Listmates,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I received by mail a hand-written answer from a pro se
> defendant. It hasn’t been filed and is not formatted correctly. Do I
> have some responsibility to file it with the court, or can I just
> mail it back to the defendant with a letter stating that it is their
> responsibility to file it with the clerk, and otherwise treat it as
> an appearance? If I need to file it, any suggestions about how?
> Should I mail it to the court clerk for paper-filing, try to e-file
> it as-is, put some type of cover sheet with a statement from me as
> to where it came from?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, Joyce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LAW OFFICE OF JOYCE S. SCHWENSEN
>
>
>
>
> JOYCE S. SCHWENSEN, PS
>
>
>
>
> 12055 15th Ave NE
> Seattle, WA 98125
> Tel: (206) 367-1065
>
>
>
>
> Fax: (206) 899-1674
> Joyce at SchwensenLaw.com
>
>
>
>
> www.SchwensenLaw.com[2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE _NEW ADDRESS_: _12055 15TH AVE. NE, SEATTLE, WA 98125_.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> /CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: /
> This communication (including any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain legally privileged information. If you are not the
> intended recipient or believe that you may have received this
> communication in error, please delete this communication from your
> computer and do not retransmit, copy, print or otherwise disseminate
> this communication.
>
>
>
>
> /ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP:/
> This e-mail does not in any way intend to provide legal advice to be
> relied upon by any recipient and does not create any duty or
> obligation for legal representation on behalf of the sender Joyce S.
> Schwensen, PS on behalf of the recipient of this e-mail without a
> written engagement agreement.
>
>
>
>
> /REFERRALS:/
>
>
>
>
> Please note that no referral by this law firm to other legal
> professionals is intended as a guaranty or assurance as to the
> experience, ability, professionalism or other characteristics of
> such legal professionals.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is
> not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include
> non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in
> related fields, and others.***
> _______________________________________________
> WSBAPT mailing list
> WSBAPT at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbapt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Links:
------
[1]
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&group=ga&set=RPC&ruleid=garpc4.3
[2] http://www.schwensenlaw.com/
andrekita
Law Office of F. Andrekita Silva
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, Washington 98101
206-224-8288
www.seattle-silvalaw.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20190716/fb122dae/attachment.html>
More information about the WSBAPT
mailing list