Should I Represent Myself in Court?

May 11, 2026

Michael Sunderland

Google Rating

Based on 275 reviews

At the outset, the reader may find it ironic to find this article published on a Law Firms website that charges for professional services. However, what follows is, so to speak, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when it comes to the decision to represent yourself in court. It doesn’t matter if you have been to law school, been a practicing lawyer for 30 years, or if this is your first time interacting with the legal system. There are always inherent risks when representing yourself in court.

Most self-represented individuals believe that the issue is ‘knowing the law’, it stretches much further than this. The reality is that most matters before the court are not won or lost purely because someone did or didn’t know a particular part of legislation. More often, outcomes turn on procedure, timing, the framing of submissions, admissibility of evidence and the ability to identify which issues actually matter to the Court.

A person who chooses to represent themselves, while well within their legal right, is in almost all cases emotionally invested in the outcome. This is an entirely understandable position to be in, it’s human nature to want the best result for yourself and to want to ensure that your voice, and that your side of the story is heard. However, emotional investment can cloud judgement. A lawyer has the ability to step back, concede what should be conceded and focus the Court’s attention to the issues that are of genuine importance.

Intelligence, education, or professional success does not immunise a person from the risks of self-representation. Courts operate according to rules and conventions that are often unfamiliar to the most intelligent and highly educated individuals. In many cases, self-represented individuals can mistakenly believe that they are assisting their case while undermining it.

You may be familiar with the famous quote from Abraham Lincoln that states;

“A person who represents themselves has a fool for a client”

This goes back further to its earliest partial match in a book from 1682 “Human Prudence, or, The Art by which a Man May Raise Himself and Fortune to Grandeur” by William De Britaine.

“He who will be his own Counselor, shall be sure to have a fool for his client”

The quotes above, at first glance, may sound severe and insulting to an individual’s intelligence or ability to advocate for themselves. However, the true meaning is far less about one’s intellectual ability and more about perspective. Even highly capable people can struggle to make calm and strategic decisions when personally involved in legal proceedings. Emotional investment, stress, and familiarity with one’s own version of events can make it difficult to assess a matter with the required objectivity that effective advocacy requires. This is the exact reason why even the most experienced lawyers will often retain independent representation should they be personally involved in legal proceedings, a sentiment that the author agrees with fully, even while being a qualified legal practitioner.

You’re probably asking, “where can it go wrong for me?” “what are the real risks?” I can say that it is not uncommon for me to witness a self-represented individual arguing a point that is legally irrelevant for 20 minutes, while overlooking the single issue that the Court actually considers to be decisive, to ask one too many questions in cross-examination, open themselves to harmful evidence, fail to object, produce inadmissible materials, speak directly from emotion rather than evidence, and misunderstanding the burden or standard of proof required. The risks that follow are at the low-end; unfavorable outcomes and at the high end, the real potential for self-incrimination.

When I started my educational journey into law, I can recall my mentor mentioning to me that “Advocacy is the art of persuasion”. At the time, this phrase sounded deceptively simple. Yet, as my experience in the legal profession developed, I came to understand that effective advocacy is not merely about speaking confidently or arguing loudly. Nor is it about overwhelming an opponent. One of the greatest challenges for a self-represented individual is that persuasion becomes significantly more difficult when a person is personally and emotionally invested in the outcome.

A judicial officer’s role is to remain impartial; however, like in all forms of human communication, the manner in which a case is presented can inevitably influence how credibility, reasonableness, and reliability are perceived.

The Court system and legal system at large are designed to administer justice impartially, including for self-represented individuals. However, impartiality does not remove complexity. A Magistrate or Judge cannot become a person’s lawyer, in fact, they cannot provide legal advice at all. They cannot repair strategic mistakes once they are made. As such, it can be found in many cases that the cost of obtaining proper legal advice at an early stage is significantly less than the cost of attempting to undo a mistake later, a cost that can extend much further than just that of financial loss.

Michael M Sunderland LL.B GDLP – May 2026