What data are you using to support "A large percentage of pro se litigants (in civil matters) are pro se because their claims have been viewed as lacking merit by lawyers."? It seems like speculation.

Research suggests that because statutes have changed across many jurisdictions as they relate to attorney fees and damages, it is difficult for many lawyers to take contingency agreements. People may not be able to afford to pay for an attorney out of pocket. So it has more to do with money versus merits.

Legal precedent states that pro se litigants are bound by the same rules of civil procedure as barred attorneys; however, even when those rules are followed by the pro se litigant, barred attorneys are the ones given the indulgences. If you are a lawyer or have participated in the legal system, then you know it is true.

Our documentary wasn't meant to show data but the circumstances. It would be best if you learned about the FHA 203(k)--- a HUD consultant, not the borrower, is responsible for deeming what work is completed. The HUD consultant notified the lender the work was not complete, and the lender still released funds for incomplete work. That constitutes a breach.

If you consider taking a borrower's financed rehab escrowed funds and paying contractor(s) whose work was deemed incomplete and non-compliant by the certified third-party inspector, even though the contract and all governing policies clearly outline when funds are only to be released...then yes, that is a way out....that way out is using the law to sue for breach of contract.