Exploit arrogant defense attorneys for your own benefit

Most attorneys think all non-attorney's are idiots who will be beat with ease. In response, some pro-se plaintiffs feel they need to convince the defense attorney they aren't stupid.

I am not sure that's a great idea. I think many pro se's would be best off hiding their abilities as long as possible. Let the defense attorney think your stupid so they don't put mental energy into exploiting the weakness in your case (all cases have a weakest link).

As usual, some background. The plaintiff in this lawsuit hired a STA-Built Construction, LLC to do outside paver work on some stairs. After the work was done, STA-Built Construction, LLC was administratively dissolved and a new company took on the STA-Built Construction, LLC name, apparently doing the same kind of work with the same workers, website, and phone numbers.

It seems the original STA-Built Construction, LLC work crew used a product called Mastic to secure the pavers and generally that product is not considered appropriate for use in wet locations subjected to daily temperature swings. Three years later when the mastic failed and caused an injury, the plaintiff sued. How do you know you are dealing with an arrogant attorney? I'd say one way is when you get a dumb letter like this in response to your lawsuit:

This firm represents STA-Built Construction, LLC (administratively dissolved) ("STA") regarding the above-referenced lawsuit ("Lawsuit"). Each of the claims presented in your Lawsuit is without merit, lacks detail or any information about damages, and is frivolous. [they probably told their client this, don't discourage them] The loose paver you described in the Lawsuit is not the result of any wrongdoing on the part of STA from its work in February of 2022. Rather, it is the result of natural wear and tear that could result from any similar construction which occurred over 3 years ago. This Lawsuit has caused STA-Built Construction, LLC and its former owner, Peter Stadeli, to incur unnecessary legal fees, noneconomic damages, and reputational damage from a frivolous public filing. Moreover, the Lawsuit has caused STA's successor to incur unnecessary legal fees for which it will expect compensation from Peter Stadeli [Being on the hook for someone else's attorney fees sounds like a pain point for this defendant. They probably should have kept that to themselves].

The reality of the situation is that one of the levers of power a pro se plaintiff has over a defendant might well be the attorneys' defending the case. Take this recent headline L.A. City Council balks at $5-million request for law firm in homelessness case. The defense attorneys' in this LA Time article are not the same as in the case, but the principle remains. Many defense lawyers bleed out their clients:

The council voted in May to provide Gibson Dunn $900,000 for up to three years of work. Over the following three months, the law firm blew way past that amount, racking up $3.2 million in bills. [defense attorneys commonly way overstaff cases. I've seen simple depositions with five defense attorneys Zooming in but contributing nothing. You know they are all billing the client] “Obviously, we are not happy, and not ready to pay that bill that we didn’t bargain for,” Councilmember Bob Blumenfield said. “We were supposed to have been notified when they were exceeding that amount. It’s written in the contract that we were supposed to be notified at different levels. We were not notified.”

Bad defense attorneys like to bleed out their client with stupid motions and aggressive tactics in discovery. If you are experiencing this, don't get wound up by it, play their game with motion practice. In many cases, when their client bleeds enough with no end in sight, they will be receptive to a settlement better than what you would have gotten with an honest defense attorney because the client just wants the bleeding to stop.

If you are pro se, don't over play it. Do what needs to be done, don't file frivolous court papers. And keep your mouth shut.

STA is entitled to file a motion to dismiss immediately [everyone is entitled to file one, that doesn't mean they will win it, and this attorney just broadcast her incompetence in not knowing her client is already in default, and that is going to make filing a motion to dismiss pointless until they deal with that], seeking recovery of its attorney fees incurred to date as well as the attorney fees incurred by its successor [if this bozo makes this argument it might help the plaintiff's argument against them both]. Therefore, this letter is a demand that you immediately dismiss your Lawsuit and pay STA-Built Construction, LLC $6,500 for its attorney fees and costs [this attorney is signaling she thinks the plaintiff is a complete idiot]. If you refuse to dismiss your Lawsuit, STA-Built Construction, LLC will move forward with its motion to dismiss and will also request the court to issue sanctions against you pursuant to CR 11 of the Washington State Superior Court Rules, for failure to ensure that your Lawsuit "is well grounded in fact [and] warranted by existing law…." [Sure, they can always ASK but that is far from getting them. Being a butt head in court is a double edged sword, use it at trial to show the jury they refused to take any responsibility for their actions] Please notify me within 5 business days if you will dismiss the Lawsuit and repay STA its attorney fees. [imho there is nothing in this letter worth responding to] If you fail to do so, we will be forced to litigate this matter further and incur additional attorney fees for which you will be responsible [Empty threat]. If you choose not to dismiss this lawsuit, please provide us with any evidence you have that supports the allegations and any damages alleged [Wait, didn't she say the lawsuit was frivolous? But evidence would change her mind? Would seeing the evidence cause her to take back the $6,500 demand? At any rate, this is what discovery is for], as we will need to consider those when preparing our motion to dismiss. [Consider them how? A motion to dismiss attacks a weakness in the complaint, not the underlying evidence. She seems to be saying she's going to come on strong with a motion to dismiss - unless the plaintiff has some evidence]

It's a dumb letter in response to this lawsuit and it shows bad faith on their part. A smart defense attorney would have at least pretended to care about the injuries and gotten to the Plaintiff to spill everything in a phone call. Then use what they learn there to defend their client. Arrogant, overconfident attorneys shut plaintiffs down from volunteering information, cause needless litigation when a case might have settled, and frequently make mistakes. Don't encourage them to take you seriously, it will only work against you. You want it such that by the time the defense attorney realizes they are losing to a pro-se, there is nothing they can do about it.

*** Update

This attorney wanted a call with the plaintiffs, who didn't really feel like hearing the same threats from the letter on the call. So they pushed back on having a call, and this lawyer felt the plaintiffs should have a matching set of dumb letters.

We will go through the proper procedure to send you a motion to dismiss and we will be seeking sanctions and attorney fees for the frivolous lawsuit and abuse of process. [So wasting her clients money. Good job!] The agenda for the call was to further confirm that you have no evidence to support the allegations in your complaint and inquire as to what damages you're alleging. [This is a good example of staying off the phone with opposing lawyers unless you know what your doing. Motions to dismiss and discovery are not conducted via ad hoc phone calls and this lawyer admits here agenda for a call was in bad faith] I am not making threats, I am explaining my client's position and intention regarding this case.  Any such position is not "busch league" and is made relying on Washington's rules of civil procedure and the pleading standards that apply to a complaint.  They are also made based on the requirement that statements made in a complaint are true and the claims have a basis in law in fact [you don't attack either of these with a motion to dismiss, you would conduct discovery and then use a motion for summary judgment].  The claims in your lawsuit do not [wait, wasn't she asking about the evidence just a minute ago?].  Again, these are not threats and are not made in bad faith.  A complaint that alleges fraud and deceptive trade practices, among other things, and seeks punitive damages, with absolutely no basis to bring those claims, should be dismissed [why all the hoopla then, just file your motion to dismiss already].  Any individual who signs such a complaint should be held responsible for the false certification. Your wife is a party to the lawsuit, signed the certification, and is therefore equally responsible for the misinformation and baseless claims in the lawsuit. Please let me know if you'd like to discus further before we prepare our motion.

I don't think there is anything to be gained by talking to such a dumb attorney, and I recommended to this plaintiff that he ignore this nonsense. Anything that doesn't move the ball forwards is only risking moving the ball backwards.

Got a Case Like This?

If you’ve had similar problems with telemarketers, debt collectors, or bankruptcy-related harassment, we might feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.

Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana?

I handle TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon, and may be able to help.

📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000

📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com

Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you're thinking of suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.

Return to blog articles

Our blog articles organized into popular topics