>There is another aspect of it - emotional distance from the case. A
>hired professional usually has it, whereas the person involved in the
>case seldom does. That makes it easier for the professional to make
>sound judgments.
Yes, this can be useful, many people do seem to lack the ability to see things objectively. But there's another side to that coin, which is that having a direct personal interest can sharpen your concentration. Motivate you to dig deeper than the advocate who is just doing a job for pay. More than that though, the person conducting their own case has an intimate knowledge of all the facts, which the lawyer lacks.
I've been on both sides of that, for many years I represented other people as a welfare rights advocate. In tribunals where people are entitled to be represented by anyone they choose, not necessarily a lawyer. People who were too passive and expected to leave it all up to me made it quite difficult, whereas those who just used me as a resource and took charge of making sure I got it right did a much better job and made life a lot easier. They would see flaws in the opposing case that I would miss, simply because they knew every factual detail.
So for instance, in cross-examining a witness, the advocate is at a disadvantage sometimes in not knowing immediately that some little detail given in evidence is wrong. The person acting for themselves will instantly realise this.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas