Really, I am using this as an excuse to dredge up a case that caught my eye before I started this blog. Specifically Julie Kamps v. Fried Frank, Fried being a major law firm (and not a food). In that case, Kamps alleges discrimination based on the fact she was gay, sexual harassment, and a few other issues. The story first caught my eye in this blog post, and today we learned that they have responded, here. Now I don’t want to talk the merits of the case directly; they will probably have a full trial to hash out these issues. Instead I would like to talk about something else.
Sometimes lawyers, or aspiring lawyers, will seek to represent themselves in court in a matter in which their competency is relevant. For instance here, Ms. Kamps is claiming that despite being a “top notch” lawyer, she faced discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. What I think a lot of lawyers (and aspiring lawyes) fail to understand is that then as they represent themselves, their actual performance in that case because part of the evidence.
For instance, I remember reading of a case where a young man sought accommodations for his disability on some state’s bar exam. The State Bar refused, so he sued, representing himself in court and took the matter all the way up to the state supreme court. There the court decided to make this even simpler. They said, more or less, well, ultimately admission is determined by us, and you have done such an exemplary job representing yourself that we’ll grant you admission to the bar without requiring you to take the exam at all.
