A lawyer can generally represent themselves in a U.S. court just like any other individual litigant, and doing so is commonly called appearing pro se. Being licensed as an attorney does not remove a person’s right to handle their own civil case or, subject to constitutional and procedural requirements, defend themselves in a criminal case.
The more difficult question is whether representing yourself is a good idea. A lawyer who becomes personally involved in a lawsuit may lose some of the objectivity that makes independent counsel valuable, and complications can arise when the lawyer is also an important witness.
What Does It Mean When a Lawyer Represents Themselves?
A person appearing in court without another attorney is considered a pro se or self-represented litigant.
Federal law expressly recognizes self-representation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, parties may generally conduct their own cases personally or through counsel.
Federal courts similarly explain that an individual may bring and handle their own civil lawsuit without hiring an attorney. (nysd.uscourts.gov)
This right applies even when the person representing themselves happens to be a licensed lawyer.
A lawyer might therefore represent themselves in matters involving:
- Contract disputes
- Employment claims
- Property litigation
- Personal injury claims
- Business disputes involving the lawyer personally
- Divorce or family-law proceedings
- Debt litigation
- Professional disputes
- Certain criminal proceedings
The attorney is acting as a party to the case rather than functioning in the traditional role of independent counsel representing another person.
Does a Lawyer Need Permission to Represent Themselves?
An individual generally does not need special permission merely because they are a lawyer and want to represent themselves in an ordinary civil action.
Federal courts routinely recognize that individuals may proceed pro se. The Southern District of California, for example, states that anyone may appear pro se on their own behalf, subject to important limitations on representing other people or entities.
The lawyer must still comply with:
- Court filing requirements
- Rules of civil or criminal procedure
- Rules of evidence
- Local court rules
- Judicial orders
- Applicable professional-conduct rules
A legal license does not allow an attorney to ignore procedural requirements simply because the attorney is appearing on their own behalf.
Can a Lawyer Represent Themselves in a Criminal Case?
A lawyer charged with a crime may generally have the same constitutional right to self-representation available to other criminal defendants.
The U.S. Supreme Court established in Faretta v. California that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to conduct their own defense when the decision to waive counsel is made voluntarily and intelligently. A judge will normally make sure that the defendant understands the consequences of giving up the right to counsel.
Being a licensed lawyer may make the defendant more familiar with court procedures, but it does not eliminate the court’s responsibility to ensure that the waiver is valid.
A court may also appoint standby counsel in some criminal cases to assist if necessary.
Is a Lawyer Treated Differently From an Ordinary Pro Se Litigant?
A lawyer representing themselves is still a pro se litigant, but courts may reasonably expect a licensed attorney to understand legal procedures more thoroughly than someone with no legal training.
Federal courts generally require all pro se parties to follow applicable procedural and local rules. The District of Colorado, for example, states that self-represented parties must comply with the same court rules and procedures applicable to represented litigants. A practicing attorney is therefore unlikely to receive special flexibility merely because they chose not to retain another lawyer.
Legal knowledge can make self-representation easier in some respects, but knowing the law does not necessarily make it easier to evaluate one’s own case objectively.
What If the Lawyer Is Also an Important Witness?
This is one of the biggest complications when a lawyer handles their own lawsuit.
ABA Model Rule 3.7 generally restricts a lawyer from acting as an advocate at a trial when the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness, subject to several exceptions. The concern is that combining the roles of witness and advocate can confuse the factfinder and create unfairness for the opposing party.
A lawyer representing themselves is in a somewhat unusual position because they are also a party with an independent right to self-representation. How the advocate-witness issue applies can depend on the jurisdiction and circumstances.
The practical problem remains clear: a lawyer who needs to give substantial testimony may find it difficult to function simultaneously as advocate, witness and party.
For example, suppose an attorney sues a former business partner over an oral agreement. If the lawyer personally participated in every important conversation, their testimony could be central to proving the case.
Hiring separate trial counsel may make the presentation much cleaner.
Why Do Lawyers Sometimes Hire Other Lawyers for Their Own Cases?
A lawyer may understand the law perfectly and still benefit from independent representation.
Litigation often requires decisions about:
- Whether to settle
- How strong particular evidence really is
- Which witnesses are credible
- Whether a claim is economically worthwhile
- How aggressively to litigate
- Whether an argument is legally strong or emotionally appealing
A person who is personally involved in the dispute may have difficulty making those decisions objectively.
The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this problem in Kay v. Ehrler, observing that even a skilled attorney representing themselves can be disadvantaged because they lack the judgment of an independent third party when evaluating evidence, strategy and courtroom developments.
That does not prevent lawyers from representing themselves, but it helps explain why many experienced attorneys hire separate counsel for serious personal litigation.
Can a Lawyer Recover Attorney Fees for Representing Themselves?
A lawyer should not assume that the value of their own legal work can be recovered as attorney fees.
In Kay v. Ehrler, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a lawyer who successfully represented himself in a federal civil-rights case could not recover attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
The Court reasoned that the statute was intended to encourage parties to obtain independent counsel.
The result under other fee-shifting statutes, contracts or state laws can depend on the specific legal authority involved, so Kay should not be treated as a universal rule covering every possible attorney-fee claim.
Still, a lawyer representing themselves should not automatically calculate hundreds of hours of personal legal work and expect the opposing party to pay for it.
Can a Lawyer Represent Their Own Corporation or LLC?
Representing yourself personally and representing a company you own are legally different situations.
Federal courts generally do not allow corporations, partnerships and similar entities to appear pro se because those organizations are legally separate from their owners.
The Southern District of New York, for example, explains that corporations and partnerships generally must be represented by attorneys rather than appearing pro se.
A lawyer who owns a corporation may potentially represent the company as its attorney if the lawyer is properly admitted to practice before that court and no other rule prevents the representation.
That is not technically self-representation. The corporation is the client and the lawyer-owner is acting as its counsel.
This distinction can become important with LLCs, professional entities and closely held businesses.
Can a Lawyer Represent Themselves in Another State?
A lawyer generally has a personal right to represent themselves even in a state where they are not licensed because an individual is appearing on their own behalf rather than practicing law for another person.
That does not give the lawyer permission to represent anyone else in that jurisdiction.
For example, a Texas lawyer who personally becomes involved in litigation in Arizona may generally appear in the Arizona case on their own behalf if Arizona procedure permits ordinary self-representation.
Their Texas license does not authorize them to begin representing Arizona clients.
The difference is between exercising the individual’s right to represent themselves and providing legal services to someone else.
Does a Lawyer Still Have Professional Ethics Obligations When Representing Themselves?
Being a party to litigation does not necessarily place a lawyer outside the professional disciplinary system.
Lawyers remain subject to professional-conduct rules that regulate misconduct, dealings with tribunals and other behavior.
A lawyer appearing personally should therefore be particularly careful about matters such as:
- False statements to the court
- Misuse of evidence
- Improper communications
- Conduct intended to disrupt proceedings
- Dishonest or fraudulent behavior
Professional discipline can arise from conduct outside the traditional attorney-client relationship when the applicable ethics rules cover that behavior.
Representing yourself should therefore not be viewed as a way to avoid professional responsibilities.
Can a Lawyer Represent Themselves in a Divorce?
A lawyer may generally represent themselves in their own divorce.
The same practical concerns that apply to other emotionally charged cases become particularly important in family law.
Divorce can involve:
- Child custody
- Parenting time
- Alimony
- Business valuation
- Retirement accounts
- Real estate
- Significant marital debt
A lawyer who regularly handles commercial litigation may have little experience with family law, while emotional involvement can make settlement decisions more difficult even for an experienced divorce attorney.
Hiring independent counsel can therefore make sense despite having the legal ability to proceed alone.
When Is Self-Representation Most Practical for a Lawyer?
Handling a personal legal matter may be more realistic when the dispute is relatively straightforward and the attorney already practices in the relevant area of law.
Examples might include:
- A small contractual dispute
- A simple debt claim
- A straightforward administrative matter
- Routine uncontested proceedings
Independent representation becomes more valuable when substantial money, criminal exposure, complex evidence, a jury trial or emotionally difficult issues are involved.
The amount potentially saved in attorney fees should be balanced against the consequences of making a strategic mistake.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Can a lawyer act as both plaintiff and their own attorney?
A lawyer can generally file a lawsuit personally and conduct the case without another attorney. The lawyer remains the plaintiff and is treated as a self-represented litigant rather than creating a separate attorney-client relationship with themselves.
Q2. Can a lawyer who represents themselves testify in their own case?
A party may ordinarily testify about facts relevant to their own case, but serving simultaneously as lawyer, litigant and important witness can create complications. The advocate-witness rules and the court’s procedures should be examined carefully when significant testimony will be required. (americanbar.org)
Q3. Can a lawyer represent themselves if their law license is suspended?
A suspended lawyer may still have the same personal right available to ordinary individuals to appear on their own behalf, but they cannot use self-representation as a way to practice law for other people while suspended. The exact effect of a suspension order and state disciplinary rules must also be considered.
Q4. Does representing yourself save all attorney fees?
Representing yourself eliminates the need to pay another attorney for work you personally perform, but litigation can still involve filing fees, expert costs, deposition expenses, service fees and other court costs. A lawyer also should not assume that their own time will later qualify for reimbursement as attorney fees; the Supreme Court has rejected such recovery under at least some federal fee-shifting laws.
