Amy Rod | Managing Pro Se Litigants in Family Law: Practical Advice for Texas Attorneys

Summary

---

Episode Overview

Podcast: Texas Family Law Insiders
Host: Holly Draper
Guest: Amy Rod, Board Certified Family Law Attorney
Episode Title: Managing Pro Se Litigants in Family Law: Practical Advice for Texas Attorneys
Date: December 10, 2025

Main Theme:
This episode features Amy Rod, an experienced board-certified family lawyer practicing in rural Texas, sharing practical advice, ethical considerations, and courtroom strategies for attorneys dealing with pro se (unrepresented) litigants in family law cases. Amy and Holly discuss the increasing prevalence of pro se parties, unique ethical and procedural dangers, and actionable tips for keeping cases efficient, fair, and professional.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Amy Rod’s Background and Practice

• Amy practices in several Gulf Coast Texas counties and is their only board-certified family law attorney.
• Her path to family law was “accidental,” driven by the practice needs in a small firm.
• Emphasizes versatility and variety in small-town law practice, handling cases from family law to municipal prosecution.
  ([02:07]–[05:06])

The Rise of Pro Se Litigants

• Pro se parties are increasingly common: “One of my district judges... calculates that at least 80-85% of the divorces... at least one party is pro se.” ([05:29])
• The trend is attributed to economic pressures, online resources, and shrinking options for affordable representation.
• Both rural and urban practitioners are seeing more pro se parties; the phenomenon transcends location.
  ([05:29]–[06:19])

Ethical Considerations (Rule 4.03)

• Clear Boundaries: Attorneys must make it explicit to pro se parties that “you don’t represent them.”
  ([06:53])
• Shared Representation: It is a public misconception that one lawyer can represent both sides if they “agree” (“Can’t you just represent us both?” – [07:35])
• Alignment Exception: Only in rare, truly aligned situations (e.g., grandparents and parents agreeing on custody) can the lawyer represent both, but must confirm absolute alignment and obtain written acknowledgement from all parties.
  ([08:54]–[09:44])

Giving Information vs. Legal Advice

• Legal Information vs. Advice:
  • Providing website links, courthouse procedures, or pointing to resources like Texas Law Help is permitted.
  • “You can’t tell them which form to go get—that’s legal advice.” ([09:54])
  • Ethical to share resources, but not recommend specific strategies or actions.
• No Duty to Help: “We have no duty to help... I don’t need to give them the address of the courthouse if I don’t want to.” ([13:05])
• Case-by-case Judgment: Sometimes, helping the pro se litigant can actually facilitate settlement or efficiency, but this must be balanced against one’s duty to their client.
  ([11:29]–[13:45])

Negotiations with Pro Se Parties

• Always restate in writing: “I don’t represent you. I’m not your attorney. I can’t give you any legal advice.” ([15:01])
• Use plain language and written summaries to avoid misunderstandings—especially for complex issues like possession schedules.
• Understand the pro se party’s level of sophistication or education; adjust communication accordingly.
• Anticipate that disclosures can be overwhelming—simplify requests whenever possible.
  ([15:01]–[19:35])

Keeping Cases Moving Forward

• Scheduling Orders: Use court-signed scheduling orders at the earliest opportunity—lists mediation, disclosure, pretrial, and trial dates. This gives the pro se party deadlines and accountability.
  ([20:18])
• Communicate via email/writing wherever possible, and outline in simple terms which documents are needed.
• Use third-party discovery (like subpoenas or depositions) if effectiveness of direct requests is in doubt.
  ([22:37]–[23:51])

Discovery With Pro Se Parties

• Avoid legalese; spell out exactly what you need (“If my client can bring me last year’s retirement statement... I don’t need five years of retirement statements.” – [24:33])
• Minimize requests for old or irrelevant documents in low-asset cases.
• Suggest running a credit report to identify unknown accounts early.
  ([24:33]–[26:05])

Courtroom Strategies Against Pro Se Litigants

• Expectation Setting: Warn your client to expect more leeway for the pro se party and less for themselves (“The judge is going to let the other party do a lot of that. And so you’re going to be frustrated because it’s going to look like the judge is helping them.” – [26:17])
• Objections: Be judicious; object only to issues that matter or harm your client.
  • “If they’re just rambling... it’s not going to hurt your client, whatever.” ([29:15])
  • Make running objections for frequent rule violations without being a “bully.” ([31:40])
• On the Record: Ask the judge to clarify oral rulings and timelines in detail at the end of a trial to avoid post-trial confusion.
  ([31:58])

Finalizing Orders & Avoiding Entry Hearings

• Seek specific on-the-record rulings regarding logistics, deadlines, and details immediately after trial; helps draft accurate orders and reduces post-trial disputes.
• Try to get the judge to set an “entry date” on the record before leaving court.
  ([31:58]–[33:29])

The Importance of Kindness & Professionalism

• Maintain respect for pro se opponents, regardless of their demeanor or knowledge.
• “I think it’s important for us on a macro level as attorneys to show that we can be respectful... It’s not my job to get over on somebody because they can’t afford a lawyer.” ([33:56])
• Being kind can diffuse tense situations and pave the way for resolution, especially if the pro se party expects a fight.
  ([33:56]–[36:41])

Advice for Young Family Lawyers

• Sense of Humor: “Family law is hard. The clients are difficult. The circumstances are difficult.” ([36:51])
• Honesty: Don’t give clients unrealistic expectations.
• Ask for Help: Reach out to other family lawyers; Amy emphasizes the bar’s collegiality and willingness to help.
  ([36:51]–[38:47])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “One of my district judges made the comment from the bench the other day that he calculates that at least 80 to 85% of the divorces that he has in front of him, at least one party, is pro se.”
  — Amy Rod ([05:29])

• “You have to let that party know that you don’t represent them. And you have to be very, very clear about that from the outset.”
  — Amy Rod ([06:53])

• “You can point them to Texas Law Help... but you can’t tell them which form to go get. That’s legal advice.”
  — Amy Rod ([09:54])

• “We have no duty to help. I mean, I don’t need to give him the address of the courthouse if I don’t want to.”
  — Amy Rod ([13:05])

• “It’s easier for me to deal with another attorney than to deal with a pro se person.”
  — Amy Rod ([14:08])

• “You’re going to be frustrated because you’re going to want to do the same thing and you’re not going to be able to because you’re represented.”
  — Amy Rod ([26:17])

• “Is the pro se party going to ask a thousand leading questions? Probably… sometimes a good way to handle that… is just to let the court know these are leading questions…”
  — Amy Rod ([30:28])

• “It is my job to represent my client. And I’ve also found… if you’re nice, that will diffuse that situation pretty quick.”
  — Amy Rod ([33:56])

• “If you reach out and say, hey, can you give me a few minutes and you can get the help and then you’ll feel better.”
  — Amy Rod ([38:47])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Amy’s background and entry to family law: [02:07]–[05:06]
• On the rise of pro se parties: [05:29]
• Ethical rule 4.03 and communication: [06:53]
• Giving information (not advice): [09:54]
• Negotiations and communication best practices: [15:01]–[19:35]
• Moving cases forward & scheduling orders: [20:18]
• Discovery approaches: [22:37]–[26:05]
• Courtroom strategies with pro se litigants: [26:17]–[31:40]
• Order drafting and post-trial tips: [31:58]
• Kindness and professionalism: [33:56]
• Advice to young family lawyers: [36:51]–[38:47]

---

Summary Table: Do’s & Don’ts with Pro Se Litigants

| Do | Don’t | |--|--| | Restate in every communication: “I don’t represent you.” | Give advice or recommend specific forms | | Communicate in plain, written terms | Overwhelm with legalese or form requests | | Propose and get scheduling orders signed early | Expect pro se parties to know deadlines or rules | | Educate clients about likely courtroom dynamics | Object to every minor infraction | | Be respectful and professional regardless of the other side’s demeanor | Try to "get over" on someone due to lack of representation | | Seek help from colleagues as needed | Try to navigate unfamiliar scenarios alone |

---

Resources

• Amy Rod’s firm: paulwebpc.com
• Texas Law Help: texaslawhelp.org

---

This episode is a must-listen for Texas practitioners seeking concrete strategies, clarity on ethical boundaries, and reminders on civility in handling the increasing challenge of pro se litigants in family law.

Transcript

[A]

In my experience and the experience of lawyers that I talk to, more and more folks are representing themselves and I think that this has just become more prevalent and I think it's something as family lawyers in particular, you know, we're just going to have to figure out how to navigate and just be more comfortable with.

[B]

You're listening to the Texas Family Law Insiders podcast, your source for the latest news and trends in family law in the state of Texas. Now here's your host attorney, Holly Draper.

[C]

Today I'm excited to welcome Amy Rod to the Texas Family Law Insiders podcast. Amy is a board certified family law attorney based in Wharton on the Texas Gulf Coast. She is the only board certified family lawyer in the counties where she practices of Wharton, Matagorda, Jackson and Colorado. She is the current District 5 Director of the State Bar of Texas and a former member of the Family Law Council. She currently serves on the form book and pro bono committees for the Family Law section. While her practice focuses primarily on family law, she also has a general civil practice, assists clients with wills, real estate and probate matters, serves as the assistant city Attorney for the city of Wharton, and is the municipal court prosecutor for the cities of Wharton, East Bernard and Eagle Lake. This is Amy's 25th year as an attorney and she's a partner with Paul Webb, PC thank you so much for joining us today.

[A]

Thank you so much for having me.

[C]

It really strikes me how different the legal landscape is in other places besides where I practice because where I live, board certified family lawyers are kind of a dime a dozen and there's just no way that you could do all those other things because it's so saturated. But so I think that's fascinating that you get to be involved in all those different areas.

[A]

It's great. It makes for family law practice is interesting enough. It gives me a good kind of change of pace and doing some other things other than family law. So I'm, I'm lucky. I get to do kind of a variety of legal matters.

[C]

So why don't you kind of tell us a little bit about yourself. Okay.

[A]

All right, we'll do. I am originally from Morgan County. I was one of those small town kids. That's where I would never set foot back. You know, once I, once I went to college, I went to my undergraduate education at Sam Houston State University, which is kind of a family deal, majored in criminal justice of all things, went to law school at University of Houston and then decided when I was living in Houston that maybe I didn't actually want to Live in Houston. And so I found a law firm, actually the law firm I'm with now, and clerked with them, kind of commuted. And then they ended up hiring me when I graduated.

Didn't intend to practice family law at all. I knew that I didn't really think I wanted to do a criminal practice, but I was. There are three lawyers here. So basically I got whatever they gave me. Have a whole lot of say. So my. My primary partner, Paul Webb, did a good amount of family law and we had a terrible divorce in about 2005. And I remember we were walking to the courthouse and he had his. He had his dolly with his boxes and he looked at me and he said, yeah, no, I'm done. Like, I'm not doing any more family law after this. And so I didn't really have a choice. And so that's how I got started in family law. As it happened, I ended up getting two jury trials out here, which were very, very unusual because we don't have many jury trials in family law cases at all. I just happen to be involved in both of them at that time. And you referenced me being board certified. After I finished that second jury trial, I thought, well, if ever I'm going to get board certified in anything, I've now qualified. And so I looked into it and was able to qualify to sit for the exam and sat for the exam. So, you know, it. It's. The family law practice was kind of accidental. The board certification was sort of accidental also. I figured out I've got probably a good temperament for family law. And, and. And I hope we can talk about that a little bit. You know, the joke is where most people have a heart, I have like a black piece of coal, which is ugly joke. But I am very good at compartmentalizing and not taking my work super personally. Personal, personal. I'm married to my high school sweetheart. You know.

If we could be a story of, you know, small town, married your. Married your high school boyfriend. I did. He's an accountant by trade. He's a controller for a local company that actually manufactures beef jerky. I have two kids. One is 23. She just got her MBA from University of Oklahoma. She's in social media, digital marketing. My son is a junior and plays baseball at Houston Christian, which used to be Houston Baptist. So that's sort of me in the nutshell.

[C]

So today we're going to talk about something that every family lawyer from the big city to small towns has to deal with and universally probably dislikes dealing with. And that is Dealing, dealing with pro se litigants. So I know you spoke about this at Advanced. What makes this topic interesting to you?

[A]

I think it, it's interesting because it's become inevitable. And, and the, the longer I practice and, and I don't know if it's the economy, I don't know if it's the advent of the Internet and AI. But in my experience and the experience of lawyers that I talk to, more and more folks are representing themselves. One of my district judges made the comment from the bench the other day that he calculates that at least 80 to 85% of the divorces that he has in front of him, at least one party, is pro se.

That is shocking to me. And I think that this has just become more prevalent. And I think it's something as family lawyers in particular, you know, we're just going to have to figure out how to navigate and, and just be more comfortable with.

[C]

I think that's interesting. The next time I see one of the judges that I practice in front of, I'm definitely going to ask because I'm curious if that's universally happening throughout the state or if bigger cities see less of that than smaller counties. But either way, I think it's safe to say that the numbers have gone up and it's something that we need to know how to deal with and know how to deal with well. So are there special ethical concerns we need to consider when dealing with a pro se party?

[A]

Yes, and it's the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. The specific rule is 4.03, if you want to go and look at it. They've actually amended it very recently and added in an additional provision and some comments. But basically what 4.03, in a nutshell says, we as attorneys have to be very, very clear when we're dealing with. And it's funny because if you'll notice, and I've noticed it with the courts I'm in front of, and then in all the reading materials, they don't really use the term pro se. They say unrepresented litigant. So when dealing with an unrepresented litigant, you have to let that party know that you don't represent them. And you have to be very, very clear about that from the outset. And, and I think that's particularly important in a family law setting. And I don't know if you've had this experience, but I still have people that come in and say, well, we're not really arguing about anything. Can't you just represent us Both. And I think that is a big misconception with the public that if we're not going to go to war over a divorce or a family law case, we can just share the lawyer, it's going to share costs. We can do that. And what the rules say, 4.03, is that you've got to be very, very specific that you don'. Represent this other party. And the comment to 4.03 is interesting too, because it does sort of give you a little bit of a caveat that it says, well, if we really are doing a. Have a transaction or a controversy where the parties are aligned, where they really do want the same thing, you can do that and you can negotiate with the other party, you can talk about terms, you can give your view of the legal obligations, but that's. I don't think that that really applies very much in a family law context, because unless literally you're just going to be the scrivener, you're just going to draft their agreement. There are issues and controversies in family law cases.

[C]

Well, I do think that it can come up if you have a third party involved, or more than that. Say you have Grandma is involved and grandma and mom or grandma and dad might truly be aligned.

[A]

Absolutely. And that is the case. And so that, you know, and that's just a circumstance where you just need to make sure you understand everybody's interests at the outset. And, you know, in my practice, and I have that semi frequently where the grandparents come in and say, look, our daughter agrees, we're going to take custody. I think to be in compliance with the rules, you need to communicate with that third party and confirm that is actually the case and let them know, I'm happy to represent you if this is what you want, but you just need to confirm to me that y' all are absolutely aligned.

[C]

So what type of information can you give to a pro se litigant without giving legal advice?

[A]

This, to me, is the challenge. It really is between, between not giving legal advice and then dealing with an unrepresented party in a, in a court hearing setting. This, I think, is the challenge. The rule says, and this is comment three to the rule. It says that you can give the litigant information, basic information about the court. And the easiest way that I can describe it is basically you can give them website information. If this is information that is or could be on the court's website, then you can give that information. And the rule in the comment actually lists out specific things. You can provide them with the actual rules. The procedures of the court, how to navigate the courthouse, how to find the court file, how to arrange for an interpreter, those type things. That is not considered legal advice. The other thing that the rule talks about, really specifically, is that you can provide information about resources so you can tell the pro se litigant, hey, I know you're trying to represent yourself. You know, we have a legal aid group here, or, you know, out, out here. We don't have a whole lot of access to free legal services, but there are some. You can point them to Texas law Help and, and say, look, you know, here's a, here's a website you may want to look at. You can't tell them which form to go get. That's legal advice. But you can definitely point them to resources. The rule says that is not considered to be legal advice. That is what they term legal information.

[C]

I do think there is a really fine line that you have to walk there because certain types of legal information, if you are giving it to the other side, could be detrimental to your client 100%.

[A]

And that's sort of where, you know, it's a tough line to walk because, and if for no other reason, you know, from efficiency sake and sort of the example I think that I used at Advanced Family Law is if I know that my judge is never going to give a 50, 50, you know, a week, a week off. I really want to tell that pro se person that. Or, and, and, and the other thing is, and like you said, I don't, I don't want to help them to the detriment of my client. And so, you know, I have the option, I think, under the rules to just say, I can't, I'm not going to tell you anything. You know, if, if, if you're going to represent yourself, you know, I respect you for that, but I'm, I'm not going to provide you any information. You know, folks, sometimes, and I don't know if they don't understand, but they will ask a lot of questions. You know, do you think I should do this? Well, you know, I'll represent you, but no, you're right. You, you definitely, but you do have the option to just say, I'm sorry, I can't provide you that information. I don't represent you.

[C]

Because even something as simple as, you know, pointing them to Texas law help or telling them where to get pro bono, where to apply for legal aid or pro bono services, you know, my client is probably going to fare a lot better if that person does not have an attorney.

[A]

100%. You know, if the person hasn't filed an answer in the case, you know, I don't have to tell them. You need to look at this website to figure out what you need to do next. You know, it is, that is not to my client's benefit, but if the circumstance calls for it and you're comfortable with it, or if you've got a client that says, look, I just want to get this done, you know, I don't care, you know, whatever we need to do, that's fine. You know, I think it's definitely a case by case on a case by case basis. But again, we have no duty to help. I mean, I don't, I don't need to give him the address of the courthouse if I don't want to.

[C]

And I think it's, you know, in certain situations it could be beneficial and it is better for our client if there's a lawyer on the other side. So kind of in that example about, you know, my client's going to fare better if the other side is pro se. Well, in a trial, probably. But is that really where your client should end up or should there be a reasonable settlement agreement, reach and, oh.

[A]

A hundred percent, you know, and I think we've all had the circumstance that the client comes in and says, well, great news, you know, she didn't have any money, so she's not going to be able to pay a lawyer. And, you know, in, in my mind to move the case along, that's not necessarily great news for me. You know, it's easier for me to deal with another attorney than to deal with a pro se person. So I think sometimes our clients if, if they kind of knew the big picture maybe wouldn't be as excited that the other party doesn't have a lawyer. The other thing is, you know, If I get 15 emails from a pro se respondent or I'm having to send, you know, certified mail and, and to try to contact them, that can end up ca costing my client more money than it would if they had an attorney. Absolutely.

[C]

Are there any special considerations to think about when it comes to negotiating with a pro se?

[A]

I think so. And I think this is where we can. And this is where we can run afoul of the rules. And even if we're not running afoul of the rules, we can cause ourselves issues. And so, you know, the best advice that I try to do is every communication with the other side or with the pro se person is, I don't represent you. I'm not your attorney. I can't give you any legal advice. And so the example is, and you know, you're in the hallway and you've got an order or you're trying to come up with an agreement, and you know, the person says, well, what do you think the judge is going to do? Well, you know, I'm not going to give you any legal advice, you know. And the person says, well, you know, I've heard that I can pick the kids up every Friday, you know, during my visitation from school. Is that true? Well, you know, kind of, yeah, but, but it's not my job to give that information to the party. And so like I said, what I try to do is anything we can do in writing, I want to do it in writing. That way there's not confusion later. And, and, and sometimes there are misunderstandings that are just good faith, you know, and, and the example that I use is again, the standard possession order. You know, an unrepresented party thinks that they understand what that means until they get it, you know, and it's six pages long. You know, they thought that just meant every other weekend I get my kids. And so part of that is anything that you can do in writing, I try to do that. That way we just sort of end run, even if they're good faith misunderstandings. The other thing is a lot of it depends on the client and the level of sophistication. You know, if this is a, if this is a divorce and we don't have any kids, and this is this person's third divorce, you know, this is not their first rodeo. That's thing if you're dealing with someone that has a limited level of education, you know, the fact of the matter is most folks are pro se, not, not by choice. Some are, but many are. They just don't have the funds to retain an attorney. And so they're trying to work their way through. So, you know, to understand what level the, the pro se party is, is working at. The other thing that, that we've got issues out here. Sometimes we've got a little bit of a language barrier. And so to me it's important. You know, sometimes I will say, do you have a family member that can come with you to kind of help bridge the communication gap? If I'm trying in good faith to reach an agreement. So I think those are all things to remember because there's nothing worse than you think you've got an agreement and then you send the order and they say, no, I didn't agree to this. Part, and then you're kind of starting from square one.

[C]

When I'm negotiating with a pro se, and really, I do this no matter what, but I never, ever write up a whole order and send it over, because that's even for represented parties, so overwhelming. And people can get bogged down in the minutia when instead of really focusing on the key elements of this agreement. So, you know, we will always do up a proposal that lays out the nuts and bolts to make sure that these are the real issues here that we are talking about. But then with something like the possession schedule, if the other side doesn't have an attorney and you just put expanded standard in your proposal, I do think it is really important to also send over this is what expanded standard looks like so that we. This will be plugged into your order so that they know or, you know, have every opportunity to know this is what the order will look like on that piece.

[A]

Absolutely. And, and, you know, a good example is, and I've had it happen, folks that go through the Attorney General's office and, you know, they come into me six months later and they say, you know, the dad now says he gets the child for 30 days in the summer. And I'm like, well, yeah, it's like on page six. And, well, I didn't know anything about that. Well, you know, I understand that. So, no, I agree, because there. And, you know, there's a lot of moving parts on folks that have an attorney. You know, they think they understand what it's going to look like. You know, where are we going to do the exchanges if we're. If we don't live real close to one another, that. That type thing, you know, there are a lot of. There's a lot of play there. And so I think that's a great idea because then you run the risk that you've got what everybody thinks is an agreement until you don't.

[B]

This episode of the Texas Family Law Insiders podcast is sponsored by the Draper Law Firm, providing family law litigation in Collin, Denton, and Dallas counties and appeals across Texas. For more information, visit DraperFirm.com or call 469-715-6-801.

[C]

So one of the hard things that can occur when dealing with an unrepresented litigant is it can be really difficult to move cases forward without going to court. So how do you walk that line between giving legal advice and, you know, just being able to move the case along without having to have a hearing over every last little thing?

[A]

That is tough. And it's Tough. Also, when you've got courts that don't have mandatory docket control orders, which many of our rural courts don't, you know, and when you've got a smaller court where your district judges on the bench two days a month, I mean, you know, that can be really difficult. So what I think works is that, and some of this will depend on whether it's contentious or not contentious. If it's a situation where you've got, you're going to need a temporary order. What I think is a great idea is when you go to that temporary orders hearing, you have a scheduling order that you've crafted that says, here is when we're going to exchange documents. Here is when we're going to go to mediation. You know, include the mediator's name if you want to. You know, here is when I'm a big fan of a pretrial hearing here, you know, about a month out or, you know, some period of time before trial, you can always pass it, but that way they have in their hand in writing, here's the timeline of the case. Knowing that we can agree, we can, we can maneuver this, but at least we've got, you know, and I am a huge fan of, here's our trial date. And, and that is our finish line. We can move it if we need to, but that way, and, and like I said, if you can do it in the scheme of a scheduling order that the court signs or that is leased on file, then that gives motivation to that unrepresented party to say, look, I've got to get this stuff done because I'm gonna get in trouble with the court if I don't, or I've got a court date that is already on the books, that if I have not provided a single bank account or tax return, you know, I'm gonna have to explain that to the judge. And so I think that's super helpful because otherwise we kind of can languish because they don't know what to do. They're not moving the divorce. Maybe they don't want to get the divorce. Maybe they don't want a custody order. Maybe they know that child support is coming at the end of this rainbow and they're in no rush to get there. So that way you've got something that everybody is operating off the same timeline.

[C]

So what are some other good practices? I think the scheduling order is a great idea. Some other standard practices attorneys should consider adopting for cases involving pro se litigants.

[A]

Again, like I said, everything that you can get in Writing is great. You know, if you've got an email address, you can communicate in email, scheduling orders, deadlines, you know, the standard request for production that the Family Practice Manual puts out. And I can say this because I'm on the form book committee, you know, is, is a little difficult. I mean it's, you know, when you're asking for a retirement statement, that request is five lines long. And so if you can have in that scheduling order or If a Rule 11 agreement or some other agreement, you know, here are the documents we're going to exchange in plain language, easy to understand with a deadline, I think that is super helpful. Also the other thing is if you can get do third party discovery and we can talk about discovery a little bit if you want to. I don't have to rely on the other side to get me a retirement statement. I can send deposition unwritten questions over to the other side. And so I think that's good. Again, if you can get those court dates at the beginning, then you're not trying to chase them down and serve them or try to get documents and to go back and forth.

[C]

So let's go ahead and talk about discovery. Since you brought that up, I could not agree more about the complicated nature of the form discovery requests. And even when we're dealing with attorneys, it's like, why can't we just put it into plain English, what we really want? Because they're so vague and generic often and request everything under the sun and you can really streamline the process if we can just say this is what I actually need. Now I understand there are times when you don't know what you actually need because reasons. But I think with a pro se that is particularly important of let's focus down onto what do we really need and make it obvious.

[A]

I agree. And I think sometimes they just get overwhelmed with, I can't figure all this out. I don't understand it. I don't know how to go about getting it. So I'm just gonna stick my head in the sand, act like I didn't get any of it. So I think that that's a problem. You know, if my client can bring me last year's retirement statement that, you know, was in the desk drawer at the house for the other party, I don't need five years of retirement statements. You know, I mean, and, and this is particularly true for folks with like low net worth divorces. I don't need six years of their one bank statement, you know, that my client has gotten every month. And I think that's a great idea because then you're doing what you're supposed to do, due diligence wise. But again, if you represent the party that did all the books and handled all of the bills and knows all of the financial ins and outs, the question is, what do I actually need from the other party? And again, try to limit it in time. I'm a big fan of. Run the credit report. That will give me an idea if we've got a bunch of credit cards out here that maybe my client didn't know any, anything about. And so, you know, I tried to just make it as simple as possible because I think you're more likely to get what you need if you can make it again, simple, finite and a shorter period of time. You know, I don't need the bank statement from, you know, 2016. I just don't.

[C]

So what about the courtroom? We have made it to trial. We are going to trial against an unrepresented litigant. What do attorneys need to know for that scenario?

[A]

I will tell you personally I struggle with this terribly because I think it's a really, really fine line to walk for a lot of reasons. I will tell you in getting ready for the paper in advance, I tried to talk to as many judges as I could because I've had the personal experience. So, you know, and some of this is it's important to manage your client and then it's important to be prepared. Because what I have found is that when you go into a hearing with a party, the judges, I submit, are being told, they don't really admit this, but they're being told they're supposed to give a non represented party the best opportunity that they can to present their case and to, and to participate in the process. So what does that mean? A lot of times it looks like the judge is helping them. It, it just does because they kind of just are. And so, you know, to begin with, before we hit the courtroom, I try to warn my client, listen, listen, we're going to go in there, the other party is going to say any manner of nonsense. The judge is going to let a lot of, let him or her do a lot of that. And so you're going to be frustrated because you're going to want to do the same thing and you're not going to be able to because you're represented. You're going to be frustrated because it's going to look a lot like the judge is helping them. And, and you just have to understand, I mean, I have been there where you Know, my client is burning a hole in my left ear going, aren't you going to do anything about this? And the fact of the matter is, you know, there's not a whole lot to do. And so what, what I try to do, and it's a hard line to walk because on one hand you want to be a zealous advocate for your client. I mean, you want to go in there and object when you need to object and let the court know that, you know, they're not following the rules because the law says a pro se party has to follow the same rules. They don't get their own set of rules. They, we all have to do the same thing. Your reality is a little bit different than that. And so what I try to do is to let the judge know I know what the rule is. I know that those are improper questions or I know what the rule is and that's non responsive and to kind of get that on the record. It can be difficult because at some point a, I mean it can just drag on because you could object to every question, you could object to every answer. It can just be really difficult. Sometimes the court will get frustrated because they just want to get the information and get to a.

And so, and, and you don't want to look like a bully and, and you know, maybe some of your clients want you to be a bully, but I'm going to be in front of that judge. Again, none of these folks are likely. And so it's a, it's a tough line to walk. But I think it's important to let the client know what to expect is going to happen. And you know, I tell mine, at the end of the day, if we get where we need to be, if it's rough going to get there, it's worth it. And sometimes it is.

[C]

When, when it comes to objecting, I think the temptation is there, especially with younger lawyers that really want to show that they know all the rules to object to everything. And I get that, I have that instinct as well. But I think you, in this in particular situation where you probably can object a lot, you want to be judicious about when what you are objecting to object to the themes that are important. If somebody is just rambling, it has nothing to do with anything and it's not going to hurt your client, whatever. But if they're using hearsay or they're trying, they're putting in exhibits that they haven't authenticated, then absolutely you should be objecting and expecting the court to follow the rules and if you annoy the judge then and you know you're going to get okay, I'll give you a running objection or you're going to get stop. You know, I get it. I get it. But from as an appellate lawyer, you know, you got to keep objecting, so object on everything that is important.

[A]

I agree. I think that you have to be selective. And so, you know, is there is the pro se party going to ask a thousand leading questions? Probably. And so, you know, the judge knows what a leading question is. And so sometimes a good way to handle that, like you said, if it's just it's not hurting your client, it's not the end of the world. It's not anything that we need to preserve. You know, and I will tell you, I've got a pro se on an on the other side of an appeal right now. So, you know, it's not anything that we need to preserve. But I think there's something to say. Your Honor, I understand that. Mr. So and so is, you know, not an attorney and he's not real familiar with the rules he's leading. And I think that the court understands that I'm not going to object to every one of these questions, but I just want the court to note that, you know, these are leading questions. And I think that sort of strikes a decent balance between Judge, I know that you know and you know that I know, but, you know, we're not going to spend a full day because I'm going to object and they're going to flounder around trying to figure out how to ask the right question. And you know, my favorite is when then the judge tells them how to ask the question, you know, which now what do we even do in here?

[C]

So we're done with our trial, we've got a ruling and now it's on us to draft an order because we're the one with the lawyer on our side. So what tips do you have for getting that order dealt with as quickly as possible, trying to avoid an entry hearing? What do you do in that situation?

[A]

The first thing that I do is if the judge is going to make an oral rendition from the bench, I try to get as specific as possible and that, you know, to ask when the judge says I'm going to give you a standard possession order. Okay. If you've got those questions and you think it's going to be an issue, for instance, where are we going to exchange? Is it expanded or not? You know, sometimes judges I've got some judges that they don't really differentiate. Some of them are still on Old school Friday at 6 to Sunday at 6. And so I try to get it on the record that as many specifics as. As we need, you know, if a court says I'm going to order that y' all are going to sell the RV and you know, pay the debt off and then, you know, split the proceeds. Okay, Judge, can you tell me who's going to sell the rv? How, how do you want that specifically? You know, tell, tell us which one needs to do it. Is there a deadline, that type thing? Because that will, when you send that order to the party and the party says the judge didn't order that because there's a lot of, you know, it's sort of like when you mediate a case and you know, you're like, okay, well this is a three page MSA that's going to turn into a 50 page final decree of divorce. That's the first thing. If I can get the judge to give us an entry date from the bench on the spot. I try to do that too. Again, it gives us a finish line. It's already set. I don't have to send notice to the other party if they refuse to sign the decree or they just go see to me.

[C]

So one thing that I saw in your paper that we really haven't talked about but I think is very definitely worth mentioning is the importance of being respectful and kind in how you're dealing with an opposing party. And it can get frustrated or frustrating. I mean, we've all been there where the other person is off the rails or a jerk to us or whatever. But talk a little bit about that.

[A]

I think that it's important and this is hard because again, you know, some of this is, is you've got a client that you're representing that it's your job to advocate for. That is, you know, just wanting you to absolutely beat this other person into the ground. And what good does it to me to have an attorney if, if we're just going to kind of let them do what they want? I think it's our duty as attorneys to treat everybody respectfully. Again, most of these folks in my experience that don't have an attorney didn't, don't. The fact that they don't have an attorney is not because, you know, they really thought it'd be fun to play lawyer or, you know, they watched it on TV and how hard can it be? Now don't get me wrong, there are some of those, you know, or this is their Third divorce and second, modification. And, you know, they know how this works and they wasted all that money before with those lawyers. But I think it's important for us on a, on sort of a macro level as attorneys to show that we can be respectful, we should be respectful again. You know, it's not my job to get over on somebody because they can't afford a lawyer. It is my job to represent my client. And I've also found, you know, some of these folks, because they've been on the Internet and on the message boards and their, you know, brother in law got divorced, is they want to come in looking for a fight and, and they want to come in and, you know, some of this and, and you know, I find too, especially if you're a younger lawyer, younger female lawyer, you know, you're dealing with some folks that think, well, you don't have enough experience. I'm going to try to intimidate you, even though I'm not an attorney, if you're nice, that will diffuse that situation pretty quick. And if they realize, you know, it's sort of like we tell our clients or, you know, the thinking is, one reason why I'm convinced that mediation works is that people want to go tell their story to somebody and once they tell it to the mediator, they thought it was the judge, but turns out the mediator's going enough. You know, sometimes they want to come in and just say their piece. Once you let them do that, and then they don't get a rise out of you and they don't get the fight that they thought they were going to get. You can move on to get the case settled, because at the end of the day, that's what we need to be doing. I mean, these are family cases, these involve kids. Most of the time, you know, my goal in life is not to spend my day at the courthouse. My goal in life is that I can help these folks and get them to their next chapter. A lot of times fighting with a pro se, being disrespectful, you know, believe me, when I get the ugly email, I will type the ugly email right back and then I delete it and then I send the professional email. And it makes me feel a little bit better, you know, and it's tough. But at the end of the day, I think we're tasked to do that by our oath. I think that that makes us look better as a profession.

[C]

So before we wrap up, there's one question that I like to ask everyone who comes on the podcast, and that Is if you could give one piece of advice to young family lawyers, what would it be?

[A]

Well, you're going to get more than one. I think my main one is have a sense of humor. Family law is hard. The clients are difficult. The circumstances are difficult. I once had a criminal defense attorney tell me, he said, you know, when I get my clients, they're on their best behavior because they're trying to demonstrate that whatever they did was a mistake and they're not going to do it again. When you get your clients, they're on their worst behavior, and I don't think that that's wrong. I think it's important to just remember and try to meet people where they are. I think it's important to be honest with your client. If what they are asking you to do is not going to happen and is not reasonable. I don't think that you serve them by blowing smoke at them to tell them, oh, yeah, for sure, we're going to go get a week on and a week off when, you know it's not going to happen, happen. I think that it's important too.

As young lawyers, especially in, in the family law bar, if you've got something that you've never seen before or you're not sure what to do about it, reach out to somebody. I mean, I've never met a family law attorney that wasn't happy to help somebody because we've all been there. You know, I've, I've been privileged enough to speak at a few seminars and I love it when I get emails from folks that say, hey, I saw you talk. I've now got this situation on your topic. You know, am I, am I pointed at the right direction? So like I said, I think asking for help, there's nothing wrong with that because you're not going to find anybody that hasn't had that, had that feeling of, oh, no, I don't really know what to do. And especially if you're not in a big firm, if you're in a smaller firm, you don't have other lawyers you can walk down the hall and talk to, send an email or pick up a phone. But like I said, young lawyers, more experienced attorneys, I've never met anybody that's not willing to help, you know, reach out and say, hey, can you give me a few minutes and you can get the help and then you'll feel better.

[C]

Where can our listeners go if they want to learn more about you?

[A]

We have a website, my tiny Little Law Firm, www.paulwebpc.com, that's got a little information regarding our firm. If you see me at any of the family law seminars, come up and introduce me. I'm happy to talk to folks. Like I said, I love it when I get an email or a phone call and, and, and, and a person says, hey, I saw your talk on this. I've had this come up. You know, what do you think? Am I doing this right or you know, can you point me in the direction? If I can, I'll find somebody that can.

[C]

Perfect. Well, thank you so much for joining me today. For our listeners, if you enjoyed this episode, please take a second to leave us a review and subscribe so you can enjoy our future episodes.

[B]

The Texas Family Law Insiders podcast is sponsored by the Draper Law Firm. We help people navigate divorce and child custody cases and handle family law appellate matters. For more information, visit our website at www.draperfirm.com.