In November 2019, Mary Peacock filed a complaint in family court to divorce her husband Mark.
Both parties started out with legal representation.
At some point during the two and a half years of court proceedings, Mark’s lawyer filed a motion to withdraw from the case. From that point forward, Mark represented himself at court.
The matter was eventually scheduled for trial on April 20, 2022.
On the morning of trial, the family court judge noted that Mark failed to provide a number of standard documents. (These were his financial statement, his notice of appearance as a pro se litigant, and his list of witnesses.)
Mark supposedly told the judge that he didn’t understand what was required of him and that he needed a lawyer to assist him. He wanted time to “hire an attorney so I can get these matters taken care of.” He also claimed to have $5,000 which he could use to retain counsel.
Then, paradoxically, he said that he was still unsure if he wanted to “waste all that money on an attorney.”
The judge refused to delay the trial and the matter was heard and decided (unfavorably for Mark) that same day.
Mark appealed, arguing that the family court judge should have postponed the trial and given Mark more time to find a lawyer.
The Appeals Court rejected Mark’s argument.
According to the Appeals Court’s decision:
the judge did not abuse his discretion in proceeding with the trial as scheduled. The need to move a court’s docket forward is often compelling, and the allowance, or denial, of a motion for a continuance of trial — including a motion based on a claim that successor counsel cannot be retained (a claim that, from time to time, we are well aware, may be utilized as a litigation tactic for delay) — is generally, and should be, a matter well within a judge’s discretion.
To read the full opinion, click the document below.