Am I considered an attorney if I am a pro se litigant? 6 Answers as of April 21, 2011

I am an active and educated Pro Per in a court proceeding. There are many references in the law, especially CCP (Family Law), to attorneys. e.g. 170.1(a)(6)(B) which states "(B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification." Does this cover me, as a pro per, and an "I am my own attorney" litigant?

Ask a Local Attorney. 100% Anonymous. Free Answers.

Free Case Evaluation by a Local Lawyer: Click here
Michael Rose Attorney at Law
Michael Rose Attorney at Law | Michael Rose
170 is a way attorneys can ask to change the courtroom and the judge. In some courtrooms the judge will hold you responsible to know the law if you represent yourself. It can be a "pitfall" for you because it is not only knowing the codes but knowing when and how to use it. Does the situation pertain to code or to case law? CCP-Civil Code of Procedure and there is Family Code. The law is constantly changing. A judgment will be the foundation of your case. When you want to make changes to your case in the future you start with the foundation. Let's hope you set it up correctly to make changes.
Answer Applies to: California
Replied: 4/21/2011
Law Office of John C. Volz
Law Office of John C. Volz | John C. Volz
No, you are not an attorney if you are a pro se litigant.
Answer Applies to: California
Replied: 4/19/2011
Law Office of Curry & Westgate
Law Office of Curry & Westgate | Patrick Curry
Yes you can claim a ccp 170.6 bias as a pro per.
Answer Applies to: California
Replied: 4/19/2011
Law Office of L. Paul Zahn
Law Office of L. Paul Zahn | Paul Zahn
No, you are not considered an attorney.
Answer Applies to: California
Replied: 4/18/2011
Warner Center Law Offices of Donald F. Conviser
Warner Center Law Offices of Donald F. Conviser | Donald F. Conviser
Not necessarily. You are a party, acting in pro per, not an attorney, and that provision relates to bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding. Nevertheless, if you are seeking recusal, it might not hurt to include the subsection 6(B) grounds.

However, subsection 6(A)(iii)abd CCP section 170.3(b)(2)(A) could be more appropriate in your situation.

Apparently, you feel that the judge is biased against you. Be very careful if you intend to seek recusal of your judge, because if your judge doesn't recuse himself, and if you seek disqualification proceedings under section 170.3(c) but fail to get your judge disqualified, the consequences could be worse for you.
Answer Applies to: California
Replied: 4/18/2011
Click to View More Answers: