Article & Journal Resources

irst, there was the Journal's page-one story today, and Law Blog readers' excellent comments, about the Ohio fellow who staved off foreclosure for 11 years.

Now, a pro se tale from neighboring Indiana.

Laura and Scott Bell didn't like their children's school district's dress-code policy. So they sued the school in Indiana state court, claiming violations of their guarantee of a free education and their children's rights to free expression. To save money, they represented themselves. The school district had the case removed to federal court in Indianapolis, where the judge granted the school's motion to dismiss the case and ruled that the Bells had to pay the school's attorney fees -- $40,931.50.

"What in the hell are we supposed to do?" Laura Bell asked, according to a report in the Indianapolis Star. "It's flat ridiculous." Later, she answers her own question: "I'm not paying it, obviously."

Here's the story (Hat Tip: How Appealing). And here is the judge's order dismissing the case and the attorney's fees ruling, courtesy of the Indiana Law Blog.

"The court even gave them guidance on how to focus on the proper issues before the court," wrote the judge. "Plaintiffs were advised on more than one occasion that the losing party in this case may be required to pay the other side's costs, and even attorneys' fees." He added: "The court allowed them as pro se parties every latitude to pursue their claims, and encouraged them to obtain the assistance of counsel."

The Star story uses the Bells predicament to spotlight the risks of representing oneself in court. It says that more and more people are appearing pro se. Readers, here's a topic -- the pros and perils of pro se. Discuss.