Vexatious Litigants Explained: When Your Ex Uses Court to Harass You

A vexatious litigant is someone who repeatedly uses a legal system in a way that is frivolous, harassing, or is meant to cause delay or unnecessary expense. His ex was filing motions every other week just to drain his bank account, but has not been labeled a vexatious litigant yet. So, what would you recommend for him to do? Some people don't want justice; they want access to you. Multiple times a week, she filed so many motions to reconsider whatever she disagreed with. This episode is for anyone whose ex is using the court system as a weapon, not to solve problems, but to drain money and keep control. This is The Glamorous Grind, and we had a viewer ask us if we could do a deep dive episode on this topic in particular. Well, ask and you shall receive, because today we are talking about vexatious litigants. Thank you; this is such a great request. As a family law attorney, this is something I encounter once in a while. Vexatious litigants: what are they, how to deal with one, and what happens if you're labeled as one of them? We're going to answer all of these questions and more, answering what to do when repeated filings become legal abuse. Okay, our viewer commented saying, "Can you do a deep dive episode specifically on vexatious litigants? I'm dealing with an ex who files emergency motions every other week just to drain my bank account, and I need to know how to stop the cycle. " So, what is a vexatious litigant? I bet that comes up a lot more in family law than it does in regular civil litigation. It does. It is pretty embarrassing to be designated as a vexatious litigant. What it takes is that in the last 7 years, you have filed at least 5 frivolous motions on the same subject or asking for the same relief that you lost. It could be a discovery request; it could be the same subject you're trying to relitigate after there has been a ruling on it. Generally, small claims is excluded, but it applies to all other courts: civil, probate, family, you name it, it applies. Once you're marked as a vexatious litigant, it goes into the Judicial Council's system that they have been keeping since 1991, where they keep names of everybody in California that has been designated as a vexatious litigant. So then, before they can file any motion and ask for any relief, or even bring a new lawsuit, they have to ask permission. There's an embarrassing form once you've been marked that you have to file; it's called "Request to File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant. " So, you pretty much have to identify for many years to come as being a vexatious litigant. If you want to file a limited civil action, family law, or any civil lawsuit, probate, even small claims or anything else, you have to sign this form and say, "I've been determined to be a vexatious litigant, and I must obtain prior court approval to file any new litigation in which I am not represented by an attorney. " So, what does it mean if you have a lawyer? If you've been designated a vexatious litigant, hiring an attorney can get you out of it, and you can file for remedies that you want and file lawsuits. But you cannot do it yourself because you've been considered to be someone who harasses people and increases their cost of litigation. Most lawyers are not going to probably take a case, at least we don't on the civil side, if we see that someone has a history of having these lawsuits. I mean, I have clients that oftentimes will try to come back and, you know, they have an employment claim, and I resolve it for them, and then all of a sudden they have another one at the next job, and I'm like, "Well, now, you know. " So, I think a lot of lawyers are very hesitant to take on people who are constantly plaintiffs in lawsuits, because realistically, the credibility of your client is going to affect the value of the case. But in family law, what if you're already in the family law system and you're constantly filing motions? Do you have to submit a document like that with the motions? It depends. I think if a lawyer takes over representing a person who has been previously designated as a vexatious litigant, you have to make sure you have good client control and, before you agree to represent them, be very clear: "I'm not going to file any bullshit motions. It's going to cost you a lot of money because I charge for time to speak with you, to respond to your emails, and if you're going to want to file frivolous motions every time, we're going to have a discussion about it, and I'm going to tell you no, here's why not. If you're not going to follow my advice, I'm not going to represent you, and our contract let's me get out of your case. I can file a motion to be relieved. Because you've been previously designated a vexatious litigant, it's not going to look good if I have to go to court and get off your case because we have a breakdown of communication on top of there being an order that you're a vexatious litigant. " How do you in family court, if you are facing harassment from the opposing side, petition the court to label them as a vexatious litigant? So, under CCP, I think 397, the court can on it's own motion designate someone as a vexatious litigant if they're self-represented, or the other party can file a motion and ask for the other side to be designated as a vexatious litigant, because they could have a lawyer who just goes along with everything, is making money on it, doesn't care, and is harassing the other side. You have to bring a motion. Well, I would anticipate if someone didn't really have very many financial restraints and could pay their attorneys whatever, they could make all kinds of motions on God knows what and get away with it. Probably from what I've seen in the family court system, there's not a lot of checks and balances to avoid harassing motions, because some of it could be true and 80% of it could be concocted. But is there really anything to get those things out, or do you always have to fight back? It would be great if you can fight back, but a lot of people lose the motivation to keep fighting because they're tired of being in court and they're tired of being harassed. So often, it turns into harassment through litigation, right? How are you going to stand up for yourself if you have a lawyer? You have to pay an attorney because attorneys don't work for free; it's not a contingency case in family law. The other side constantly going to court and filing motions—they can't be designated a vexatious litigant until they've lost a number of times on those issues and keep coming back on the same issues. So, you have to be able to litigate and pay your lawyer to get through that process, or you represent yourself if you have a limited budget. Then eventually, if you can show at least, you know, 5 rulings on similar issues that the person has lost, then you can get counsel on whether or not it's worth filing a motion to designate them as a vexatious litigant. And then if they are designated a vexatious litigant and they attempt to file additional motions that are similar or even different, what does the court do? First, the court has to review this application where the vexatious litigant has to ask for approval to either file a new lawsuit, or file any petition in probate, family court, any application, and any motion except for discovery under family or probate code. They have to attach this form with exactly what they want to file, so it has to be ready to go, and be uncertain if the court will allow them to do that. Then they have to make a case why this filing has merit and why they believe they'll suffer harm if they're not going to get the remedy that they're seeking, and they have to explain that this new filing is not being filed to harass or delay this case in any way, and give reasons. The court reviews it, then gives them permission or denies the request to file it. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. I love the process. I think it's worse than that. I think the standard should be lower for someone to become a vexatious litigant in my opinion, but it is good that at least there's a process to kind of mitigate some of the harassment that goes on. I had a client that I represented many years ago. After I got off the case, she started going ex parte repeatedly. I actually had to get off her case and file a motion to be relieved. Multiple times a week, she filed so many motions to reconsider whatever she disagreed with. But the court got so annoyed with her that the court designated her as a litigant when she was in propria persona. She was in propria persona for a number of years in that case. I think it was worth it, because had the court not stopped her—she didn't understand. She was very intelligent, but she did not understand when the court says no and why. She would just not take no for an answer, and it was harassing the hell out of the other side, who kept spending money on lawyers' fees, hearing the same story, and appearing at ex partes that were not an emergency. It seemed like the court was denying a lot of her ex partes in chambers, but she kept then filing motions and getting her hearing dates, and it was non-stop. Family law sounds so overwhelming. It's so different from other forms of civil litigation because, a, it's so personal. You know, I can imagine you spend your life with someone, you build a life with someone, and then you separate from them, especially if you have children. It's so personal. Then the second part that's different is it's constantly ongoing and changing. If you have a car accident and you have injuries, your injuries could get a little bit better or worse, but generally speaking, the injuries are what they are. It's not personal; the person probably didn't do it on purpose. So, it's much more solid. In family law, it just seems like there's so many ups and downs, and there's so many emotions involved. I can't even imagine. I think that there would be a lot of room for people to be vexatious litigants and continue to file motions to try and hurt the other person, especially if they see that the other person is moving on with their lives or found someone else, and they maybe haven't, right? So, what holds people back is the budget for attorneys. Is there anything punitive done to a lawyer if they take someone who's a vexatious litigant and blindly follow their orders just because they're getting paid by the hour? Of course. In family law, you can ask for sanctions—Family Code § 271 sanctions—and that goes against the litigant. But under the Code of Civil Procedure and any civil lawsuit, you can send notice to the lawyer, a safe harbor letter under CCP § 128. 5, that says you have 21 days to drop this motion, and here's why. But the pain in the butt is that you have to draft the motion. So, your client has spent money on writing the letter to opposing counsel, preparing the entire motion, declaration, points, and authorities, and sending it to them, giving them 21 days to drop it. If they don't drop it, then you file it, and the court decides if it was frivolous, and the court has authority to sanction the attorney and the party for bringing this frivolous motion. But if they drop it, then you've incurred those fees without collecting them, right? Yeah, but in the family court, you can then also file a Family Code § 271 sanctions motion, which is for increasing the cost of litigation for making frivolous requests, not settling on fair terms potentially when issues and facts are clear. You certainly can put all that together in your declaration and say, "These are the fees I incurred as a result of doing that. " So, under Family Code § 271, award attorney's fees and costs that are based on the frivolous acts that increase the cost of litigation, rather than need-based fees, which in family court, if one party has more money than the other, you can ask for attorney's fees and costs based on the one party's ability to pay for both parties' fees, not based on their conduct, just financial resources. So, the caller that called in said that his ex was filing motions every other week just to drain his bank account, but has not been labeled a vexatious litigant yet. So, what would you recommend for him to do? Well, it's about perspective. I would have to see: what are the reasons why she's going ex parte every other week? Are they different reasons? Is it because of custody and visitation issues? Is it to advance a motion on financial issues to be heard sooner? If she's going ex parte every other week for the same reason, and it keeps getting denied, then he can ask the court at another hearing status conference to label her a vexatious litigant, because her requested remedy was denied at least 5 times on the same issue. But if it's potentially a restraining order matter, and there are accusations of some abuse towards the children and there's proof, or she's appearing ex parte on financial issues to advance it and it's always a different reason supported by evidence, or the court has given her a hearing date when that could be heard, then it potentially would not be a vexatious litigant. To him, it may seem like she's doing that to drain his account, because it is going to drain your account when you have a lawyer. But ultimately, it's: why is she going ex parte? What about the term "paper abuse"? What does that mean? Just means you file a bunch of bullshit in court that is just to complain, non-ending declarations, pleadings that will not get you the relief you want, but just to complain and trash someone's reputation and get all the dirt out there because you feel unsatisfied about the results. It's kind of throwing up too much information and seeing what sticks. How do judges react to vexatious litigants? You can tell by their face when you walk into the courtroom and you end up representing someone who appears to be that way that some judges have a good poker face, and it's appreciated because whether or not they're going to rule in your client's favor, they're respectful to both parties, and some are not. I had a case where I took over someone that the court hated for no good reason, really. I mean, in my opinion, I really enjoyed working with this client; she followed my advice. Yeah, she would have been in court every day probably if she didn't have a lawyer, but she was good at following my advice. I enjoyed working with her, but the judicial officer did not like her—the first one before it changed. The transcript from that hearing when she was self-represented was the most disrespectful treatment of a litigant that I've ever read, and I was offended as a lawyer that a judge would treat a person like that, not have a poker face, not have respect for the way they speak with them. But it depends on the judicial officer. I think judges are supposed to be neutral, but at the end of the day, they're still humans, and I think it's probably difficult for them to be completely neutral all the time. At the same time, I feel like if I was a judge, I think the hardest thing for me with vexatious litigants would be that they probably don't think that they're doing anything wrong, and if you really truly feel empathy for them and you understand their struggle and how they're seeing it from their perspective, they don't see it as, "Oh, I'm trying to screw the other person over. " They feel hurt, and that's probably why they're doing what they're doing. Well, it comes down to judicial demeanor. So, we've been in front of many different judges. We know with this one judge, they'll lose their cool, they'll interrupt the lawyers and opposing parties, and you need to know when to talk and when not to. In propria persona, self-represented litigants often don't know judicial officers like that, so they get on the bad side of the judicial officer. There are some judges with whom you can continue discussing their ruling and possibly change their mind after they have ruled, and others will cut you off and be like, "I'm done," and walk off the bench. So, you've got to know your judicial officer. If you're self-represented and you think you may be soon labeled as a vexatious litigant, it's a good idea for you to go sit in the department and listen and learn about the judicial officer so you don't end up on the shit list. I actually have a question for you about family law that I'm just curious about. So, I have a friend of mine, he's in the middle of a divorce with his ex—soon-to-be ex-wife. They still live together. There's a disparity in income; she hasn't worked for many years. Kids are grown, but he works; he's a doctor, he has a good income, and she kind of refuses to work and refuses to move out. I guess she tried to find a job, and she only lasted 6 weeks because she didn't have time to do Pilates and she was too tired, so she just stopped working. Now she volunteers, but she's demanding. He does pay all of her attorneys' fees, pay for her rent, give her a monthly. She's not ever going to be required to work, even though the kids are grown? She doesn't really have any responsibilities. Is there anything. I feel like his lawyer is just being weak and he should push on her to find a job and move out, but he's like, "No, my lawyer says that I have to keep paying her, and, you know, she doesn't have to work because she hasn't worked. " She's like 45. Oh, so she's very young. Yeah, I mean, I was saying that very young. She is. I'm just. I think that's crazy. What he can do, if she doesn't agree, is file a motion for a vocational evaluation of wife. I would do that as early as possible because if she is only 45, she's not in her 60s, okay? And the kids are grown up, and she's healthy enough and has the ability to work, but simply doesn't want to, then it'll cost them like $2,000 to $3,000 to do a vocational evaluation of wife. But they're going to look at her skills, her abilities, her education, the time it's going to take to get retrained, and they'll prepare a report on what her earning capacity is right now and how soon she can get that job. It's also going to include a prediction that in 6 months, she should be able to earn X or find this type of employment, and in a year and a half or 3, should be able to earn Y or Z, and is going to have a median salary that she can earn right now, the highest and the lowest. Then, if she doesn't take this report seriously, which sounds like she probably is not going to want to, then after paying a couple of years of support, he comes back and says, "She hasn't done this, she hasn't done that, she hasn't done that. Let's terminate her support or, depending on the length of the marriage, reduce support significantly because she has not taken steps to become self-sufficient when she had expert advice on what needs to be done to get there. " So, it's called a vocational evaluation. The sooner you do it, the better. Then you present it to the other side, you take their deposition. I had a case like that where I represented a doctor. It was many years ago. He was paying wife support longer than they were married. Needless to say, she was by then in her 50s, because he was a lot older than her originally, was not working, had a boyfriend that was living with her for many years, didn't care to marry the boyfriend because she was collecting support from my client. We had to hire a private investigator. She was denying living with the boyfriend. The private investigator was marking the tires when the boyfriend's car was there, and when he was leaving, we proved through surveillance that he was living there, because the Family Code allows for reduction in spousal support when you're cohabitating with someone else. So, she was denying she was cohabitating and obviously not getting married on purpose, although she's been with this guy for many years. But additionally, there was a vocational evaluation done like 10 years ago, or over 10 years ago, that contained recommendations. So, post-judgment, when he hired me, I took her deposition, and I went through the report: "Did you do this? Did you do this? No, you haven't looked for a job, didn't get one. Did you take this training? No, I didn't. What have you done? " You know, nothing, really. So, we went back to court to reduce her support, together with evidence of cohabitation as well as lack of any effort to do anything with this vocational report, and we're able to slash her support significantly to almost nothing. What's your thoughts on whether we as a people are becoming more litigious? I don't think anybody wants to be in litigation unless you're crazy and you enjoy it and you crave it and you want all that attention and you have some emotional need that's unsatisfied, and your only way to get attention from someone is to see them through court and keep that connection going for whatever reason. I think just generally in the United States, litigation is a thing. People sue each other in small claims because that's possible, and it doesn't take so much to fill out a form and go there and litigate. In civil court, it's a little harder; you won't do a good job unless you have a lawyer to get it all the way through trial if the laws allow it. However, in what you do, employment law, right? Yes. I think the legislature has created a litigious environment by making laws that make it easy for people to file employment law claims, to find a lawyer that will take a bullshit case. Like copyright laws, trademark laws—in the past as a business owner, I received those letters: "Oh, there's a picture on your website of our building, and. This is a picture that I own copyrights to," that everybody uses. "But you send me this demand to pay you $7,500 just because there's a code section," and you're probably a really crappy lawyer that has never been to court and done anything, but you just have this preprinted letter in the code section you sent. Now, ChatGPT, I think it makes it really easy for people to file pleadings, and we could become more litigious going forward, because people could file a complaint really easily using ChatGPT. They can figure out how to litigate themselves; they won't do a good job in court being represented. And if they don't check their facts, ChatGPT and others can create facts and make false allegations that will later hurt them in a case if they don't know what they're doing. So, I just posted an Instagram thing on this, I think yesterday. But I've dealt with a lot of clients recently that have potentially good cases, but I would not touch those cases, because they used AI to try and assess the value of their case, and immediately I know I will not be able to manage their expectations. I had a woman call me yesterday, and she was like, "Well, I think my case is worth X. " She was terminated as part of a layoff, and she probably has a case, because the termination was shortly after, I think, she filed for disability in September for mental health issues, and then it's April, so it's not been that long. She's the only person in that department who was laid off; no one else was laid off. But they're saying, "We don't need you anymore. " It's a software company, and she's a software engineer. Probably a good case, right? But the problem is she believes, she wants a number at the very outset of the case. I tried to explain to her, "I cannot provide an assessment, because I don't know what's on the other side. I don't know. Maybe they had emails saying that they we're looking at layoffs before you even told them about your disability. Maybe they had legitimate business reasons for your position to be terminated. In that case, you would have a zero case, right? Like, maybe there are other things that play into it. Maybe your performance was bad. Until I get your personnel file, get into discovery, I can't possibly give you an assessment of what the value of the case is. " And she was like, "No, every other attorney has given me a number. " Like, "Well, then you can go hire them. " The reason is AI is going to pull information and verdicts that have been published on the internet that make it in the news, or that someone does a press release on. It's going to be based on huge numbers and values. But the reality is, if you go to a source such as Lead Docket, which is a source for attorneys to look at all verdicts in any state and any county, because it matters what verdict you get in what county in California versus another state, and small verdicts don't get published—like nobody's going to go and make a press release, "Oh yeah, I settled the case for $20,000, woohoo! " No, nobody's going to do that. So, AI is not going to pull that data and give her those results. But if you go into Lead Docket and search all dockets in the state of California on a specific issue with similar facts, you may find that the case was defended in front of a jury and someone lost, and that another case that has a different set of facts got an award, but it could have been like $50,000, $100,000, or whatever, but they had to spend another $100,000 on experts, because all of that matters. Pro pers, people who are self-represented, they don't know to ask AI to explain to them how much someone invested in experts, what it took, how that case is different from the facts of their case, right? And what are the small verdicts and defense cases that AI has considered to come up with these values? So, it's totally out of proportion, whether it comes to personal injury or employment law. It's so out of proportion, and there are so many case-specific facts that you, as a layperson, can't even anticipate to put into the AI system. So, there are a lot of little tiny factors that you can't consider. So, we're going to play Red Flag, Green Flag: red flag if it's a no, and green flag if it's a yes. So, these are scenarios that might tip off attorneys or judges that someone is a vexatious litigant. You ready? Let's go. Okay, one spouse saying, "I'll ruin your life and make you spend every last dollar in court. " Well, it depends. Saying that once, but not doing anything about it, won't make them a vexatious litigant. But if you said it, and then you acted on it and ended up filing frivolous motions repeatedly on the same subject and trying to relitigate the same issues multiple times within a short period of time, then yes, you would be a vexatious litigant. Sending massive emails or documents right before deadlines or court dates. I think it's fine, because if someone is self-represented, they may not know what the deadlines are or how to submit it to court. Most likely, if the other side has a lawyer, they're going to be able to exclude it, because it's tardy and wasn't served timely, and the court will just not consider it. But that in and of itself will not make someone a vexatious litigant; there are procedural grounds and technical grounds to exclude that evidence. Red flag or green flag: someone who refuses to accept rulings? I think it depends. Again, refusing to accept—what does that mean? Are you just can't get over it, and you're upset, and you have to go see a therapist? Or are you not following the court orders? Because if you're not following the court orders, and therefore not accepting the court rulings, the remedy is to file a contempt against you, which is a semi-criminal proceeding where you're going to be found to be in contempt of not following the court order, and the judge can then order sanctions, monetary, and sending you to jail, depending on how frequently you're not following the court orders. But if you are in disagreement with the court orders and you keep coming back to relitigate the same issues, then the court still has power to hold you in contempt, and also, on it's own motion, designate you as a vexatious litigant. What about filing emergency motions when there are no true emergencies? Well, if it's not a true emergency in family law, under Rule 5. 151, the court may just deny it in chambers and not even hear the matter, because there are no emergency grounds. But if it's on the same subject, and after it was denied, you keep coming back and asking for the exact same thing repeatedly, yeah, you're going to piss off your judicial officer, and the court may, on his or her motion or at the request of the other party, designate you as a vexatious litigant, depending on the number of times and the issues. Let me ask you this: if someone files the same motion again, there probably has to be new information that they couldn't have known at the time the prior motion was filed, is that right? That is correct. And also depends on the timing. Like, if you have children, you're going to be in court for the next 18 years possibly relitigating custody and visitation; that does not make you a vexatious litigant, because circumstances change, and the court always has to look at the best interest of the children. What if there's someone new in the other ex-spouse's life that is a problem or is bad to the children, putting them in danger? What if someone got on drugs or alcohol, is neglecting them? What if someone is moving? You're going to be back in court for a number of issues that come up. In life. Just because you're filing a motion to change custody and visitation doesn't mean that you're a vexatious litigant, even if it happened within a short period of time. But if you're coming back based on the same facts, same information, trying to relitigate the same thing, and you have no new basis, you've lost again. Now you lost again and again on the same—twice, if you don't have any new basis. I mean, they will have to hear it if it's on the calendar, but they would likely deny the motion. In civil court, if you file an ex parte, or if you file any motion, there's usually a tentative ruling, and then if the other side agrees to the tentative, they like walk away, right? They have that in family court? No. About 15 years ago, we had a judge that did tentative rulings, and I really loved it. It was Judge Taylor—he's in civil now—and that was great, because you would go in department knowing what to exactly argue and what you don't need to argue anymore. But no other family law judge does that in family court. I always find it a little scary when the judge rolls on a tentative and you're just like, "No, I disagree with you, and here's why. " It's always scary. It's fun! It's fun. It's also, you know, you could piss off the judge that way. It's their job. Sometimes the judge really. Because behind the scenes, the judge's clerks are the ones who research the issues and kind of make the rulings before the judge agrees to it. So, sometimes they do miss things, or maybe you find another case and you can come in and say, "This is why I disagree. " But 90% of the time, I find that the tentative gets upheld. So, for our glam tip of the week, the question is: what do you do if someone threatens to sue you? What can you do to protect yourself? From an employment law perspective, I think it's super important to document things while people are still employed. So, from an employer's perspective, just like from an employee's perspective, I know most employers at least make attempts to do things by the book, but to make sure that is documented. If there's a complaint, immediately review it, you know, take it seriously, investigate it, whether internally or, if it's a really small company and HR is close to the people involved and you want to be safe, you hire an outside investigator. There are outside HR consulting companies that can come in and do investigations or help you assess how to handle things. You know, there's ADP TotalSource; the companies that use ADP, if you pay for the premium version, they have an internal HR that you can call them and be like, "Hey, this is happening, what do I do? " So, just very important to make sure that it's documented that you're doing everything right, because like I said, from an employer perspective, most employers are not like, "Oh, screw it, I don't care. " They try to do things right. Just document it, make sure to take things seriously, and train your supervisors. Because the problem with the. The reason I have so many great employment cases is not because the company screws up, but because there are people within the company that screw up, and the company either doesn't know that it's happening, doesn't train them properly, or doesn't do anything about it. So, taking that proactive approach and making sure it's documented, because as a plaintiff's attorney, if you take on a case, every plaintiff has a wonderful story about how they were wronged, right? But if I take it and do a personnel file demand, and the personnel file comes back and it shows me that the company did in good faith try to protect this employee, I'm probably not going to pursue the case if there's no case. There are employment attorneys that will do it anyway and don't care; I'm not one of them. But from an employment perspective, that's the best way: just make sure you're up to date on your policies, make sure you take complaints seriously, make sure you hire outside counsel to investigate issues as they come up, and make sure your employees feel protected and heard, like that they can go to HR or to a supervisor to make a complaint. Document every step of what you do to ensure that the laws are being followed. What about in the family law context? What do you recommend someone do if someone threatens to sue them? Well, threatening to sue in family court either means that someone is going to be filing for divorce or a paternity action and seeking support or custody/visitation rights. I would come in for a consultation with an experienced family law attorney, preferably a certified family law specialist or a partner level, to get strategic advice on what support may look like if you are the one who's going to be paying it, or if you're the one who is going to be receiving it, then you're going to get advice on what documents to gather to be better prepared so that your divorce case can move along to potential settlement and getting disclosures done. Just strategic planning ahead. Like, once somebody gets served, what are you going to do in response? Are you going to file a motion for support, and attorney's fees, and custody/visitation orders? Or maybe you're not going to file anything, because you may be the payor; you may trigger the other side to take action you don't want them to take. So, you have to plan it all out and also know what documents to gather to have evidence if you are going to have to seek any sort of relief in court. What if they can't afford an attorney? It's still worth an investment to come in for a consultation with an experienced litigator, because they're going to get a roadmap of what to do, what to expect, and even if they hire a cheaper attorney, at least they'll have a perspective of what to compare it to and know what may happen. If you can't afford a consultation, then there are a lot of law firms that do free consultations, so I would probably get as many free consultations as I could with different family law attorneys and then do it myself. The court website has self-help resources. You can now Google things and chat things, but again, more often than not, that like 50% is right, 50% is not procedurally. It can tell you what to do, but it's all about prompting; how you prompt it is what it's going to give you advice on. So, if you don't know how to issue-spot as lawyers would, then you're not going to get the answers that you may want to have. You may not be able to stop someone from trying to create chaos, but you can do some things to protect yourself and your bank account: build a record, ask for remedies, potentially sanctions and fees, and stop reacting emotionally. Give the court a clear pattern that it can act on. Hit that subscribe button and make sure you follow us, and if you've got a question for Let's Get Gritty, leave it in the comments or send it to podcast@onianlaw. Com. Thanks for listening, and we're going to see you next time on The Glamorous Grind.