Forum Self-Represented Litigants Study Responses I was disappointed to see John Whitfi eld’s article on self-represented parties make such elementary mistakes in analysis. In particular, Mr. Whitfi eld erred in assuming that where two cir-cumstances coincide, one must be the cause of the other. Specifi cally, the article recites that in general district court civil cases, the rate at which plaintiffs are awarded judgments jumps from an average of 52 percent of the time across all situations, to 60 percent in cases where the plain-tiff has a lawyer but the defendant does not. When representation is reversed — when plaintiffs are pro se but defen-dants are represented — dismissal rates rise from a 15 percent average (across all cases) to 25 percent. Mr. Whitfi eld’s analysis was, “Representational status has a clear impact on case outcomes, particularly when only one side or the other is represented.” I realize that in Mr. Whitfi eld’s position, he sees unaddressed needs where ever he looks, and thus, he may be predisposed to jump to his conclu-sion as he seeks to advocate for more legal aid funding. Regrettably, however, he has fallen prey to a common mistake in statistical analysis, inferring too much from a spurious correlation. Simple non-payment collections cases predominate on the civil dockets of our general district courts. Anyone familiar with those courts knows that the same people who simply cannot pay their creditors, also cannot pay a lawyer. Thus, there is always going to be a strong correlation between not having a lawyer and suffering a judgment. But this does not prove that the inability to hire a lawyer results in losing cases that should be won; the court is supposed to enforce the law, after all, and when debt-ors fail to pay justly due debts, plaintiffs are entitled to judgments, irrespective of whether the defendant has a lawyer present. Moreover, a rational debtor might well conclude that expending a sub-stantial portion of his or her meager re-sources on a lawyer, when no change in outcome could reasonably be anticipat-ed, would be a poor fi nancial decision. Again, the fact that such a debtor would make this sound decision is not cause for alarm. The jump from 15 percent to 25 percent dismissal rates for represented versus unrepresented plaintiffs likewise correlates with several root causes that any experienced practitioner has seen in real life, but that would not support Mr. Whitfi eld’s desired conclusion. On behalf of our profession, I should surely hope that a represented plain-tiff would be far more likely to have carefully reviewed the merits of a case before fi ling it; would have brought only causes of action believed to have merit; and would bring a case only when any further efforts at conciliation appear representation continued on page 8 6 VIRGINIA LAWYER | June 2018 | Vol. 67 www.vsb.org