My situation was one in which a former romantic partner seemed cordial, promised contact and then changed her mind to seek bad legal advice. That legal advice was not to send a formal, written “no contact letter” but to begin a series of increasingly paranoid thoughts and allegations which confused, saddened and annoyed me. The specific statute under which she brought her civil suit was ORS 30.866, so some of my advice is limited by the paucity of my experience.

I am not a lawyer and did not understand what a potentially serious thing such a suit could become, especially if it escalated into later accusations of criminal conduct involving a mercenary looking for billable hours. Because I didn’t know much about civil law, did not know how to find a suitable lawyer, and did not have the money to pay for one if I did, I appeared pro se, representing myself. My first advice if accused on any legal matter is to get a lawyer.

For those unfamiliar with civil law, finding a lawyer can be intimidating. My general advice is to talk to people you trust and then get the names of two or three different lawyers, at different firms. Lawyers have very different areas of expertise, and most are not very good outside of their specialty. I was moderately lucky that my opponent chose one shitty lawyer, one outside of her expertise, and a third who was a semi-competent sleaze. Whether better lawyers turned her down or she was just lazy, I am uncertain. Had she chosen better, I would have been destroyed, and  my ultimate and costly victory was largely possible because I had a better lawyer than she did. It is a funny thing that innocence does not matter in law as much as one might think. Most lawyers will talk to you at no charge for an hour or less, and an hour’s worth of good advice early can save you months and years of expensive pain. For less than a week’s wages, I could have saved over a year’s worth. Get a few recommendations and meet with two or three to choose one.

Innocence does not matter as much as you think. I repeat this because it was a surprise to me. My opponent was a pretty white girl with money, who appeared very sympathetic to the judge. Her initial claim failed, but when she came back, she came back with a lawyer who told an engaging story, which was completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Most people prefer a familiar story to clear data and inarguable facts, because believing is easier than thinking. Do not trust that your innocence will protect you when a motivated lawyer is involved.

Judges are not always very smart. It was a great surprise to me, having seen one skilled judge, to see another judge who was not nearly as skilled. “Pro tem” judges are especially dangerous, because they tend to be less experienced and are given the crappiest assignments. Think of them as the substitute teachers of the courtroom. Although placed in a position of authority over those who have no choice in the matter, they are generally not as good as real, elected judges. Many pro-tem judges take the job because they need the money, cannot support themselves as lawyers or have political ambitions which involve ingratiating themselves with other lawyers. Sometimes all three come together in one judge. It may be very important for you or your lawyer to explain to the judge exactly what the law in question is. Not all judges can be relied upon to understand the law, actually read it or carefully check that the law is applied.

Exact laws and exact facts matter. I didn’t appreciate it at the time, but setting up a clear correlation of relevant facts to the specific law is important. Anything that does not exactly match a fact to the law will distract the judge, and lawyers understand this. The most skillful lawyer I faced pro se understood this completely. He was constantly bringing up dramatic and irrelevant stories, even outright misrepresentations, because he understood that the law was against him. Clients pay lawyers to get a result, and if they can distract the judge to avoid the law and facts, they will do so. That is how the game is played and, to the extent that they are not caught or called out, they will do so. Misrepresentation, irrelevance and perjury on the part of witnesses is just part of the courtroom game. As much as you can correlate indisputable facts of the case to specific parts of the law, you may do well. To the extent that other things are introduced and confuse the judge, you may be harmed.

Specifics of ORS 30.866 are worth knowing. In my case there were various aspects of the exact law which I, as a non-lawyer, did not know to emphasize. I focused on the assertion that, given the history of the case, my opponent’s fears were irrational. The relevant portions to focus on were otherwise. I had never been physically abusive of anyone in my adult life, including my opponent, but I did not know to have her admit that. I had also never done most of the other things mentioned in the statute, but I did not know to run through that list in open court and have her admit that. She could have perjured herself, of course, but she didn’t. Mostly she and her witnesses “couldn’t remember” relevant details, and judges generally will not inquire. In my case, there were never two “predicate contacts” within the relevant time period of two years within the statute, and the judge was confused by a laundry list of stories and misapprehensions on the part of my opponent, the party suing me. Knowing the specific law is very important, and getting as many details of how the facts match the law into the court record is vital.

It cost me several years of grief and over a year’s gross wages to clear my name against a charge that was bogus from the start. May my pain help you avoid some of yours.