[throwaway2048]

A lot of people forget small claims courts are an option, lawyers arnt allowed, and judges are pretty sensible. Its a good option for sub $10k USD claims.

Large corps are unlikely to even show up, meaning you win by default.

[notjtrig]

I've heard that just asking for the leagal department's address to send a small claims summons will get your issue resolved right away.

[Dylan16807]

It's a good option for $1k-$10k claims.

It's not so great for a $150 claim when you take into account the filing fee and the time it takes.

Can you reliably get the fee back? Still a giant hassle.

[pktgen]

Probably varies by jurisdiction, but I know in my jurisdiction, court fees and related costs (such as the cost of serving the summons on the defendant) are automatically added to the judgment if you win.

[ams6110]

Yeah and this varies by person obviously. I wouldn't even think about small claims court unless I thought there was $1,000 or more recoverable.

[djrogers]

> lawyers arnt allowed

Not true - any time you take a big corp to small claims court, they're going to send a lawyer to represent them. You are suing an entity, not a person, and the entity will pick who represents them.

[brightsize]

Washington State:

"Unless a judge grants permission, Attorneys and paralegals are excluded from appearing or participating with the plaintiff or defendant in a small claims suit."

http://www.atg.wa.gov/small-claims-court-0

[InitialLastName]

So who would show up to represent the defendant in the case where a multi-national corporation got sued? Do we expect that the CEO show up to every lawsuit? A randomly chosen employee?

[parliament32]

Officially it can be any employee other than "an attorney-at-law or legal paraprofessional". I imagine most companies would send whoever has the best chance of explaining the issue away: some sort of expert or PR rep.

[foota]

Operative word being with, I believe. If I am Microsoft, and I have a lawyer on staff, I should be able to send that lawyer.

[stordoff]

I believe not, if you consult the full text:

> A corporation may not be represented by an attorney-at-law or legal paraprofessional except as set forth in RCW 12.40.025.

12.40.025 covers the transfer of cases from the district court to small claims, so for claims starting at the small claims level, the restriction appears pretty tight.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=12.40&full=true

[sjg007]

Nope.. not if they passed the bar or are otherwise a paralegal.

[sokoloff]

So, if you sued a law firm, you’re going to win by default? I find that hard to believe in practice.

[stordoff]

Reading through it, that situation doesn't appear to be specifically addressed, but I _suspect_ that it would depend on the specifics of the case:

* If you are suing an LLP, you are taking an action against an individual member of the partnership, thus they can appear as the defendant. Though 12.40.080 can be read as excluding attorneys regardless of their status as the defendant, I believe that has to be read in conjunction with the notice that the court issues under 12.40.060. The defendant is "direct[ed] and requir[ed ...]to appear personally in the small claims department", thus granting the permission described in 12.40.080(1). Even if that is not the case, it would seem inequitable to prevent the defendant appearing, thus I would expect the judge to grant permission to appear.

* If you are suing a larger company that ISN'T operating as an LLP, it would seem likely that they would have staff beyond the attorneys/legal paraprofessionals, thus they can represent the company.

* If you are suing a corporation that is truly made up of 100% legal professionals, that seems to be the case where things get somewhat murky, though that really does appear to be a corner case. The restriction in 12.40.080 is quite clear: "A corporation may not be represented by an attorney-at-law or legal paraprofessional", and I suspect it gets into the minutia of interpretation that I am not equipped to determine. However, I do note that 12.40.060 requires the defendant to appear, not _necessarily_ participate in the hearing. Thus, perhaps the hearing can proceed WITHOUT representation from the defendant, allowing the judge various options to achieve a equitable result (transfer the case to the district court where the restriction is lifted, issue a judgement if the facts are clear or it seems the company setup is deliberate in order to try and avoid the small claims court, summon employees as witnesses -- so even though they are not representing the company the facts of the claim can be established, make an order permitting a legal professional to represent the company--depends on the extent of judicial powers/making an equitable case to overrule the restriction etc.).

Note that this is just based on reading through the linked laws, and is likely wrong/inaccurate in some ways. However, it does appear that a law firm would have options beyond a default judgement.

12.40.080: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=12.40.080

12.40.060: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=12.40.060

[sjg007]

You might get the secretary or intern!

[funkymike]

Many small claims courts do not allow the company to send whoever they want. Some outright disallow sending lawyers.

[djrogers]

For person to person suits, yes. For a suit against a corporation who has an attorney on staff? You're getting an attorney. Granted, it may be one who's not familiar with small claims court, but it'll be an attorney. BigCo isn't sending the CEO or the receptionist - they have a legal staff in house, they're gonna use them.

[tzs]

Not in California [1] in the general case.

[1] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...

[syshum]

Every state I have seen they have to send a Non-Lawyer Employee to Small Claims

The Small Claims court is specifically designed to not be handled by lawyers, even for business and "large corporations" does it does not matter if they have a laywer on staff unless the judge waives the rule the Corporation must authorize a non-lawyer to act as it represnative for the purposes of Small Claims.

That could be any employee approved by the Board of Directors, so no they would not send the CEO, but they likely would send a person who is viewed as an expert or have detailed information to defend the corporation against the claim in a Small Claims environment which is far far far far less formal than a Normal Court room.

[tony101]

In some states, companies have to send a regular employee to small claims court.

For example, in California, "a corporation may appear and participate in a small claims action only through a regular employee, or a duly appointed or elected officer or director, who is employed, appointed, or elected for purposes other than solely representing the corporation in small claims court."

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...

[vkou]

My naive reading of this leads me to believe that they can send a lawyer who is primarily employed for... A million and one other purposes. (M&A, non-small-claims-court litigation, contract law, etc.)

What they can't do is send a lawyer employee whose sole job is small-claims-court litigation.

[tzs]

The section the poster above you referenced also includes this:

> (m) Nothing in this section shall operate or be construed to authorize an attorney to participate in a small claims action except as expressly provided in Section 116.530.

Here is the relevant part of section 116.530 [1]:

> (a) Except as permitted by this section, no attorney may take part in the conduct or defense of a small claims action.

> (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply if the attorney is appearing to maintain or defend an action in any of the following capacities:

> (1) By or against himself or herself.

> (2) By or against a partnership in which he or she is a general partner and in which all the partners are attorneys.

> (3) By or against a professional corporation of which he or she is an officer or director and of which all other officers and directors are attorneys.

So...it looks like for a corporation that is not a professional corporation, they cannot send an attorney even if that attorney is a regular employee.

That does raise an interesting question. What happens if a corporation is not a professional corporation, but every officer, director, and employee is an attorney? They would not fall under the 116.530(b) exception, and so would seem to all be excluded uner 116.540(m).

[1] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...

[throwaway2048]

but at the same time there really isnt any point for them to send a lawyer that is going to cost massively more than what the claim could be even theoretically.

[aylons]

There's one point:deterrence. Half of a corporate lawyer's work is about deterrence, anyway.