The two law school students picked the right hearing for their assignment in a civil procedures class.

Judge Ruth Ann Jakubowski ruled on 21 motions in one case Tuesday morning in Baltimore County Circuit Court, according to court records. I had to refer to court records even though I was in the courtroom because I lost count during the two-hour hearing.

The case, Alatortsev v. H& J Motors Inc. et al, drew my attention because it was one man against eight defendants, including several BMW dealerships. I was all prepared to write a humorous blog post about all those defense lawyers playing musical chairs at the defense table to be heard. (I felt especially bad for the court reporter, who could have used name tags to keep track of everyone.)

But then the hearing began, and it wasn’t quite as funny. The case has consumed seven volumes since Vadim Alatortsev filed his complaint in August 2008. From what I gathered, he alleges there were multiple problems with a used BMW he purchased in late 2007.

Alatortsev cited COMAR several times, held up reams of paper and said he “always reads the small print,” but apparently he wasn’t clear on the rules of procedure and discovery.

Judge Jakubowski denied all 11 of the plaintiff’s motions, which ranged from requesting a court-appointed forensic scientist to review allegedly forged paperwork to seeking a protective order to prevent the defense from obtaining personal information about Alatortsev and his wife through discovery.

“Once you file a lawsuit, you become an open book,” said Jakubowski, who, as chairwoman of the Maryland State Bar Association’s Judicial Administration Council, is developing guidelines for attorneys facing self-represented litigants.

Jakubowski also denied Alatortsev’s motions to sanction the defense lawyers for their actions, explaining that the lawyers are simply doing their jobs. She ordered Alatortsev to allow the defense experts to examine his car, and ordered him and his wife to sit for depositions within the next 45 days.

“At some point in time, with the pleadings in this case, you’re going to subject yourself to attorneys’ fees or the case’s dismissal,” Jakubowski said. (One of the defense laywers indicated in court that he would seek attorneys’ fees from Alatortsev.)

The whole hearing got me thinking – is this an extreme case of the perils of self-representation? Or is this more common than I think? If you don’t want to leave a public comment, please e-mail me.

There’s just too much good law-related stuff out there this morning to tell you all about! Here’s a special, miniature (fun size, if you will) law round-up:

• John Bratt of the Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog says he’s glad he doesn’t work for Doug Gansler. Bratt noted my colleague Steve Lash’s report that assistant attorney general Brian Kleinbord is the attorney of record for Maryland v. Shatzer, which Gansler argued in the Supreme Court yesterday. “You know what that means?” Bratt writes. “It means that Kleinbord and the other lawyers wrote the briefs and did all the work. Now that it is time for argument, the guy at the top of the letterhead is swooping in to take advantage of all of the attention, and the glory if he wins.”
• The guy who wants the military to combat proselytizing of soldiers and cadets is suing to get a former Navy chaplain to “stop asking Jesus to plunder my fields… seize my assets, kill me and my family then wipe away our descendants for 10 generations.” The former chaplain says he was just quoting Scripture and never incited violence against Mikey Weinstein, though he said he “pray[s] the Psalm that his days are few.”
• This line from The National Law Journal’s account of the opening day of the Supreme Court term yesterday is hilarious: “Justices Breyer and Clarence Thomas spent several minutes during arguments peering at the marble friezes of lawgivers on the walls of the Court high above them, apparently noticing new features they hadn’t seen before from their earlier vantage points.” I really can’t add anything to that.