Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Pro se

Read a random definition: recognition clause

A quick definition of Pro se:

Pro se: When someone goes to court without a lawyer, they are called "pro se." This means they are representing themselves. The law says that people have the right to represent themselves in court, but it's important to know that it can be hard and risky. The court will make sure that the person knows what they are doing before allowing them to represent themselves. This includes understanding the charges against them and the consequences of their actions.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Pro se is a Latin term that means "for oneself" or "on one's own behalf." It refers to a person who represents themselves in a legal proceeding without the help of a lawyer.

For example, if someone decides to go to court without hiring a lawyer, they are proceeding pro se. This can happen in both civil and criminal cases.

The right to proceed pro se is protected by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, it is important to note that this right is not absolute. A defendant must make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of their right to counsel.

One famous example of a pro se litigant is Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber. Kaczynski represented himself during his trial for a series of bombings that killed three people and injured many others.

Another example is a person who represents themselves in a small claims court case. They may choose to do so because the amount of money at stake is relatively small, and they believe they can present their case effectively without the help of a lawyer.

pro rata | pro tanto

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.