In my opinion, economic cases (excluding criminal cases and labor cases) are speechless as long as the parties do not invite lawyers (or legal affairs). I have been engaged in legal work for more than ten years, and I have been a lawyer for several years. The success rate of the judgment against the parties who do not send lawyers to appear in court is almost 100%, and I have basically never lost. It is not bragging to say this figure, because it is not glory at all. Even if a professional boxer wins every time, there is nothing to brag about. I just want to make everyone realize how vulnerable an ordinary person who has never studied law is to professional lawyers in judicial trials. My level in the legal profession is just so-so. That is to say, if a party goes to fight an economic case without a lawyer, unless the other party also doesn&;t hire a lawyer, whenever he meets a lawyer who is a little more reliable, he is joking with his own money. Many people think that it is easy to open a court session. It seems that it is not too difficult to sit in court and answer a few questions from the judge. In fact, there are a lot of pits in the middle of a trial, and a little carelessness is a total loss. A lawyer needs to spend a lot of time studying the case and formulating the trial strategy before the court session. If the parties change their positions, they may not even have heard of the term &”;basis of claim&”;. How do you deal with professional lawyers? Can&;t let the judge teach in court? Just like playing chess, one doesn&;t even understand that it is a dream to win a professional chess player under the same conditions. A person who has no professional legal training, no matter how sufficient and reasonable the evidence is, is completely immature in the face of a professionally trained lawyer, and the lawyer can trap you by asking two questions casually. Lawyers know what to say and what not to say, and what can be provided and what not to provide, but ordinary people don&;t know that almost everyone who goes to court is like opening a chatterbox, telling all the messy things, providing all the messy evidence, and finally being easily caught by the opposing lawyer. This kind of party&;s appearance in court is basically to send the other party&;s head. Many times, the judge can&;t stand it, and will try his best to be partial to the ordinary people, such as explaining the law to him, or giving him a little time to give evidence to supplement some evidence, or adjourning the court to suggest him to consult a lawyer, or privately warning the lawyer not to go too far, but it&;s basically useless. The judge has to be neutral and can&;t teach him how to respond in court. It&;s no use worrying. If you are ignorant of the law, you will always get a little sympathy from the judge. The most speechless thing is those half buckets of water, who don&;t know how to pretend to understand and can&;t even earn sympathy. Judges hate clients who know a little about the law but don&;t hire lawyers. For the judge, it is best for both parties to appear in court to be lawyers. Although lawyers may make the whole thing very complicated when they talk about jurisprudence, everyone comes from the same door and has the same rules. They can understand each other quickly and communicate easily. If you meet a party who doesn&;t understand the law, it is a very headache to explain the rules and regulations to him, and it is also a judge.The lawyer has no obligation or right to explain anything to the other party, and he just sits there watching the jokes of the judge and the other party. Even if the judge tries hard to explain, the client may not understand, and he may think that your judge is working with the opposing lawyer to deceive him. If he is not satisfied with the sentence, he may even make a complaint for you. Therefore, judges usually have a headache when they meet parties who don&;t understand the law, and they wish that there are lawyers on both sides. If you obviously have the ability to find a lawyer and don&;t find it, it is completely normal for the judge to give you a bad face. In a case before, the client made a clear statement at the beginning, and I thought it was a hard nut to crack. As a result, the judge asked him how he knew this. He said that he had asked his lawyer, and then asked why his lawyer didn&;t come. He said that he didn&;t ask a lawyer after consulting, so he came to court himself. After listening to it, I was in a big mood. Isn&;t it an armchair strategist for people who only know theory to go to court? The next few questions confused him, and he was not prepared for evidence or anything. The judge was too lazy to take care of this guy who stood up to the lawyer, and he didn&;t give him the time limit for supplementary proof. In the end, all the first and second trials ruled that he lost the case. In fact, judging from the evidence I have from my side, his chances of winning should be 70% to 80%, as long as a lawyer can clear his mind and sort out the evidence. I lost hundreds of thousands to save some lawyer fees. Finally, he cursed the lawyer who provided him with free consultation in front of me, which made me laugh. Did anyone really think that they could go to the operating table by themselves after asking the doctor a few questions?