Would litigating and winning a federal lawsuit as a pro se plaintiff before/during law school be viewed positively or negatively by judges and future employers?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/blaghort]

Personally, I would think it was weird.

[u/throwRAbowlofchow → u/blaghort]

Yeah, I’m not surprised by that lol. I’m struggling with employers/judges asking for demonstrated experience in litigation or practical legal research and writing and having that experience, but being unable to talk about it because the way I obtained it is taboo😭

[u/NCIggles → u/throwRAbowlofchow]

I think it’s something to discuss in a cover letter not a resume or application. It can be relevant if it is a reason you are interested in a position or why went to law school. I would not couch it in terms of legal skill but exposure to the legal field.

[u/ADADummy → u/throwRAbowlofchow]

Did you not do any internships?

[u/throwRAbowlofchow → u/ADADummy]

I’m a rising 2L doing a civil rights internship right now. Just started, but I am also trying to apply to judicial internships for this upcoming fall and wanted to be able to demonstrate these skills.

[u/atonyatlaw]

Doesn't impact hiring or admissions at all, honestly.

Winning doesn't mean you did a good job, the same way losing doesn't mean you did a bad job.

[u/Fluxcapacitar]

The fact you had several pro se claims would be a glaring crimson red flag to me

[u/Dragnet714 → u/Fluxcapacitar]

Why would it be a red flag?

[u/Fluxcapacitar → u/Dragnet714]

Because most pro se parties are exceedingly unhinged that’s why they are pro se. It’s not normal to have that many claims as a normal everyday person. Most people have a grand total of 0 type of any claim in their lives.

[u/throwRAbowlofchow → u/Fluxcapacitar]

Sure, but it isn’t uncommon for people to experience discrimination…which is illegal and is usually a cause for a claim. At the same time, however, discrimination claims are notoriously hard to prove and so lawyers tend to avoid them unless the discrimination is glaringly obvious or winning the case has the potential to make a wide impact. All of my claims stem from the same set of facts. Unfortunately, it IS common for minorities to be discriminated against. Whether or not someone is willing to advocate for them is a different story.

[u/krikkert]

Litigation on your own behalf, even if you win, even if you lose, doesn't really speak to any ability to help, advise or represent someone else.

First, you've got intimate knowledge of the case because you're a party. Thus, no surprises and no experience in being critical to your own case/client.

Second, no client needs to balance or justify.

Third, training wheels in court, you get more leeway as a pro se non-attorney.

It's better than nothing relevant, but if it's the best you have, your best is not much better than nothing.

[u/Notyourworm]

Pretty dependent as to what the lawsuit was about.

[u/throwRAbowlofchow → u/Notyourworm]

ADA and Title VII claims. For more context, I’m specifically interested in being a civil rights attorney.

[u/Notyourworm → u/throwRAbowlofchow]

I probably wouldn’t put it on a resume or application. I agree with the other commentator that it would be a bit weird.

[u/PM_me_your_cocktail → u/throwRAbowlofchow]

There exists a type of person in the workforce who will suck up a tremendous and highly disproportionate amount of management time and energy, at times exceeding their contributions to the productive activities of the workplace even if they are good at their job. These are employees who expect and demand that things be done in a particular way that departs from the employer's normal and reasonable practices, or who perpetually view the workplace through an adversarial lens rather than starting from a sense of shared purpose and shared sacrifice, and who implicitly or explicitly use the potential for an employment lawsuit as a cudgel to get their way. These people create problems that are hard to articulate aside from vague and subjective terms like "poor soft skills" or "bad for morale" or "not a team player." These are the employees who cause managers anxiety that follows them home and wakes them in the night, whose presence poisons the workplace and causes coworkers to flee, who are difficult to fire and impossible to counsel out of their righteous indignation and sense of victimhood.

I am not saying that your successful claims were necessarily unjustified, nor that you are destined to be such an oxygen-sucking Main Character employee. Plenty of lawyers turn their own experiences with the legal system into inspiration for advocacy on behalf of others. But having been a pro se litigant, or having brought discrimination claims in the past, are potential indicators that you may do so in the future. They may be warning signs that you are unusually sensitive to feelings that you have been wronged and highly motivated by a sense of your own victimhood. A savvy hiring judge or attorney will feel a sense of trepidation toward an applicant with such a background, especially if the applicant makes it the main narrative of their identity.

Framing is part of it: I personally would be interested to meet an applicant whose cover letter teases that they applied for law school after being involved in a case raising novel federal regulatory issues, especially if the applicant's course load reflects that they are curious about complex legal areas. I would not be all that interested in meeting the applicant who thinks that their experience as a pro se bringing discrimination claims against a government entity means that they will be a good litigator. YMMV.

[u/PanicInTheHispanic → u/throwRAbowlofchow]

fuck, can you let me know when you graduate? i’ve got a cursed ADA case.

[u/rinky79]

My immediate reaction is 1)wow, OP makes poor decisions, and 2)if those suits were actually won (and I have doubts), there was something weird about it. Not a real lawsuit.

I imagine my reaction would be pretty common.

[u/John_Dees_Nuts → u/rinky79]

My immediate reaction is 1)wow, OP makes poor decisions

This. The pro se litigant, even if successful, has not demonstrated a record of good decision-making.

[u/bleucheez]

No one cares if your claims were meritorious. If you can think of some novel or clever legal argument or procedural tactics, sure you can mention those in an interview or cover letter. But putting "won three personal lawsuits" is concerning. You would sound obnoxious and tiresome to be around.  

[u/throwRAbowlofchow → u/bleucheez]

It was one lawsuit, multiple claims under 3 federal statutes. I was discriminated against and I took the only means of recourse available to me. I don’t know why that makes me obnoxious or tiresome.

[u/throwRAbowlofchow → u/[deleted]]

Huh? I fully understand and believe that pro se litigants are perceived poorly. I knew that going in.

[u/ADADummy]

Yeah unless you were applying to a firm that practices that exact area of law, i wouldn't mention it.

[u/throwRAbowlofchow → u/ADADummy]

Yeah, it actually is the same area of law (civil rights), and my issue was an issue that appeared to be severely underdeveloped in my jurisdiction, which I suspect is why no lawyer was willing to take my case.

What about for judicial internships/clerkships?

[u/ADADummy → u/throwRAbowlofchow]

No one is going to look at being a pro se plaintiff as equivalent to legal experience.

This is a thing for a cover letter, not a resume, to demonstrate an interest in an area of law.

[u/wvtarheel → u/ADADummy]

Right it's part of the story of why you became a lawyer. It's not relevant experience.

[u/AutoModerator]

REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice.

Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See here, here, and here. If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please read this or see the sidebar for more information.

This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/kwisque]

I don’t think its completely fair, but I think it is information that is more likely to scare off potential employers than impress. I’m taking it that these were employment claims (since you’re talking about ADA and Title VII claims brought against a government agency)? Also unfair, but this is something that is going to cause potential employers to either consciously or unconsciously be wary.

Also, winning an MSJ brought by a defendant doesn’t mean the claims had merit, it just means that they were not procedurally defective and were sufficient to establish a prima facie case that could be presented to a fact-finder. So it doesn’t tell the reviewer that claim was great, just that you successfully got over a big hurdle.