Litigation
can
be
an
extremely
complex
process
for
individuals
unaccustomed
to
the
practices
and
procedures
of
pursuing
claims
in
court.
As
a
result,
lawyers
who
have
claims
of
their
own
might
have
advantages
if
they
seek
to
litigate
those
claims
in
court,
since
they
can
presumably
save
money
on
legal
fees
and
benefit
from
knowledge
of
the
legal
system. However,
some
lawyers
might
be
dissuaded
from
pursuing
claims
in
court
since
they
understand
the
delays
and
minutiae
of
litigation.
Several
years
ago,
I
represented
a
client
who
was
being
sued
in
a
small,
somewhat
petty
matter. I
observed
that
the
plaintiff
was
operating
pro
se,
but
that
the
summons
and
complaint
were
well
drafted.
I
eventually
discovered
that
the
plaintiff
was
an
attorney,
which
accounted
for
why
this
pro
se
plaintiff
had
solid
papers. Upon
conducting
a
search
of
this
lawyer’s
name
in
court
records,
I
discovered
that
the
lawyer
had
been
a
pro
se
plaintiff
for
a
number
of
claims.
I
tried
to
treat
this
pro
se
plaintiff
as
I
would
any
other
lawyer
with
whom
I
interact,
and
the
topic
of
lawyers
pursuing
their
own
claims
pro
se
came
up
in
conversation. This
lawyer
turned
pro
se
plaintiff
espoused
the
advantages
and
suggested
that
I
should
feel
empowered
to
do
the
same
if
I
felt
aggrieved
in
the
future.
I
countered
that
I
would
need
to
have
a
significant
claim
to
warrant
going
to
court,
since
I
would
likely
need
to
declare
litigation
matters
on
bar
applications,
background
check
forms,
and
the
like
if
I
ever
wanted
to
pursue
certain
opportunities
in
the
future.
I
could
tell
that
this
lawyer
turned
pro
se
plaintiff
had
not
thought
about
this
consequence
of
pursuing
claims
in
court. The
lawyer
related
that
it
was
unlikely
that
a
lawyer
would
be
denied
admission
to
a
bar
or
a
job
opening
for
litigating
their
own
claims,
but
I
countered
that
they
still
would
have
to
submit
additional
information
and
explain
the
litigation
matters
when
pursuing
certain
opportunities. I
generally
agree
with
this
lawyer
that
attorneys
pursuing
their
own
claims
in
court
may
not
warrant
denial
of
job
openings,
but
the
hassle
of
explaining
such
matters
to
potential
employers
and
bar
authorities
might
make
it
less
likely
to
pursue
claims.
I
also
once
had
a
lawyer
friend
with
whom
I
worked
at
a
midsize
law
firm. This
friend
felt
aggrieved
by
a
given
business,
and
he
decided
to
litigate
his
claims
against
the
business. His
papers
were
excellent,
and
my
friend
definitely
drew
upon
his
experience
as
a
lawyer
to
zealously
pursue
his
claims
in
court.
However,
the
friend
said
it
was
uncomfortable
to
deal
with
court
staff
as
a
pro
se
plaintiff
when
he
was
familiar
interacting
with
them
as
an
attorney.
This
friend
believed
that
this
could
fray
relationships
that
might
be
helpful
in
his
job
as
a
full-time
lawyer. In
addition,
it
was
difficult
for
this
friend
to
take
time
off
of
work
to
attend
all
of
the
court
conferences
and
other
proceedings
relevant
to
his
case. In
addition,
our
bosses
at
the
firm
apparently
did
not
like
that
this
friend
was
litigating
his
case,
perhaps
since
they
thought
he
was
using
firm
resources
to
pursue
the
claims
or
because
this
possibly
impugned
the
reputation
of
our
law
firm.
I
am
not
the
type
of
person
who
would
quickly
run
to
court
if
I
felt
aggrieved
by
a
particular
issue. Litigating
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
cases
throughout
my
career
has
shown
me
that
litigation
is
a
time-consuming
enterprise,
and
judicial
resources
are
better
spent
on
larger
matters
that
cannot
be
easily
resolved
between
parties.
In
addition,
lawyers
litigating
their
own
claims
might
face
barriers
to
future
opportunities
and
might
hurt
their
reputations
in
ways
that
can
impact
their
work
as
attorneys.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.