You cannot be represented by anyone other than an attorney. However, if you include all of the information you have in your motion to move with your child, you will not have to say anything because the judge will already have the answers to his questions...
The simple answer to your question is "no." Indeed, as an individual person (as opposed to an entity or business) you are entitled to represent yourself in Court (this is called pro se representation). Otherwise, you must retain the services of an attorney licensed to practice in the MI Court where your Domestic Relations matter is now pending.
One option is requesting to appear by telephone. You would still have to speak for yourself, but it might make it easier not being in the same room with him. You have to request it in writing, and the judge has to issue an order for you to appear by telephone. And you have to request it well before the hearing.
The other counsel who answered this question are correct. You cannot have another person who is not a lawyer speak for you or assist you at counsel table. However, there are several things you should do before the hearing to try to help you feel more comfortable.
Unfortunately your husband cannot speak for you. Even if you have a lawyer, you will need to testify. It's possible to find an attorney who will take payments, reduce his fees or try to apply for fees to be paid by your ex-husband. Best wishes.
During a prior divorce case, the defendant brought her daughter to a meeting with her family law attorney. Because the daughter wasn't essential in conveying information to the lawyer and wasn't reasonably necessary to protect her mother's interests, her presence at the meeting destroyed the privilege.
Relatives and Friends. A defendant might very well expect confidentiality when talking with a lawyer in front of a loved one. And it may be unlikely that the prosecution ever finds out about the meeting or calls the loved one to testify.
On the other hand, a Missouri court found that a defendant charged with second degree murder had waived the attorney-client privilege because of a family member's presence at a client-lawyer meeting. During a prior divorce case, the defendant brought her daughter to a meeting with her family law attorney.
Because the daughter wasn't essential in conveying information to the lawyer and wasn't reasonably necessary to protect her mother's interests, her presence at the meeting destroyed the privilege. So, the family law attorney's testimony about the meeting—given at the murder trial—was admissible. ( State v.
The general rule is that, by allowing a third party to be present for a lawyer-client conversation, the defendant waives the privilege. That generally means that the prosecution can force the third party to reveal the contents of the conversation.
Despite the general rule, there's an exception in most states: In general, when a third person is present, the attorney-client privilege continues to apply if that third person is there in order to aid the cause. Put more specifically, the third person must be present while fulfilling a role that furthers ...
Put more specifically, the third person must be present while fulfilling a role that furthers the defendant's legal representation. The person might be part of the lawyer's staff, an outside party with relevant expertise (for instance, an investigator), an interpreter, or even a relative who acts in an advisory role.
Lawyers are human, and like everyone else, they sometimes make mistakes when representing clients. In some cases, the mistakes are small and easily fixable—for example, not filing enough copies of a document with the court or needing to reschedule a meeting. Other times, the mistakes are serious—such as missing the deadline to file a lawsuit, ...
Lawyers are given a lot of responsibility and often deal with serious matters, from criminal charges to child custody to tax and other financial matters. When you hire a lawyer, you are trusting him or her to represent your interests in the best manner possible.
In most cases, a board of lawyers and non-lawyers will review the complaint. If there’s a potential ethical violation, the board will give the lawyer a copy of the complaint and an opportunity to respond.
Lawyers who don’t live up to their ethical obligations can face discipline from a state board. Lawyers are human, and like everyone else, they sometimes make mistakes when representing clients. In some cases, the mistakes are small and easily fixable—for example, not filing enough copies of a document with the court or needing to reschedule ...
Lawyers are given a lot of responsibility and often deal with serious matters, from criminal charges to child custody to tax and other financial matters. When you hire a lawyer, you are trusting him or her to represent your interests in the best manner possible. To protect the public—and the integrity of the legal profession—each state has its own code of ethics that lawyers must follow. These are usually called the “rules of professional conduct.”
The American Bar Association publishes the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which lists standard ethical violations and best practices for lawyers. Some states have adopted the model rules as their own ethical rules, while others use it as a guide and modify or add rules.
Not returning the client's documents. A client’s file is generally considered to be the property of the client. When a client fires a lawyer and asks for the file, the lawyer must promptly return it. In some states, such as California, the lawyer must return the file even if attorneys’ fees haven’t been paid in full. Lawyer incompetence.
Defendants cannot represent themselves unless a judge determines that they are competent to do so. The community as a whole has an interest in achieving justice, and a trial in which an incompetent defendant self-represents isn't a fair one.
As long as a defendant is competent, knowingly gives up the right to an attorney, and understands court proceedings, the defendant is entitled to self-represent. It's critical to note, though, that the fact that one can self-represent doesn't mean that one should.
The case that established that defendants have a right to represent themselves was Faretta v. California, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1975. The Faretta case said that a judge must allow self-representation if a defendant is competent to understand and participate in the court proceedings.
Judges and lawyers typically refer to defendants who represent themselves with the terms "pro se" or "pro per," the latter being taken from "in propria persona." Both "pro se" and "pro per" come from Latin and essentially mean "for one's own person."
Ella tells the judge that she wants to represent herself in the burglary case. The judge allows Ella to do so, on the ground that Ella has been convicted of various crimes three times in the past and is thus familiar enough with criminal law to represent herself.
In view of her limited education, her history of mental problems, and her inability to participate meaningfully in the trial, the judge should have ignored Ella's wishes and appointed a lawyer to represent her. Example: Lexi Khan is charged with assault and battery, and wants to represent herself.
In the arraignment court, Lexi refused to enter a plea, and repeatedly said that the whole system is biased and that she wanted nothing to do with it. Over Lexi's objection, the judge appoints an attorney to represent her.