Pro Se Tenants Continue to Face Exploitative Tactics When They Seek Justice

An Analysis of How Court Procedures, Counsel Conduct, and Information Asymmetry Perpetuate Housing Injustice Even After Litigation Begins

Document Overview

Charleston County Court of Common Pleas Case number: 2025-CP-10-05095
Filing Date: November 20, 2025
Filed by: Plaintiffs McNeil and Poyer
Document : Brand Promise Violations Analysis (of Law Firms Phelps Dunbar and Resnick & Louis)
Document Type: Exhibit from Plaintiff's Response to Defense Request for Continuance and Motion for Protective Conditions
What's here: 5 Separate sections including Brand Promise Violations Analysis, 4 emails and 1 voice message transcription.

Executive Summary

When tenants who represent themselves in court encounter defense counsel, they face three barriers simultaneously:

  1. Procedural disadvantage — Pro se parties lack familiarity with discovery rules, motion practice, and evidence standards

  2. Information asymmetry — Counsel has resources to produce documents, interpret case law, and control narrative

  3. Tactical exploitation — Some defense counsel treat pro se litigants as opportunities rather than adversaries deserving professional courtesy

This analysis examines whether that third barrier is a feature of the system or a choice made by individuals within it.

How Legal Procedures Become Weapons Against Unrepresented Parties

The Pattern

In case 2025-CP-10-05095, plaintiffs James McNeil and Meaghan Poyer are litigating pro se against four defendants five attorneys, and two law firms. The record so far documents a pattern:

TacticFormEffectSC Rule Violated?

Condescending assumptions

Written advice presuming pro se parties misunderstand proceduresUndermines credibility; implies incompetence unwarranted4.3 (advice to unrepresented party)

Frivolous procedural motions

Motion alleging AI use without evidence, contradicted by prior pro se litigation historyCreates burden; consumes pro se party time and court resources11 (good faith factual basis)

Coordinated intimidation

Repeated contact with same false implications; tactical timing after deadlinesGenerates defensive behavior rather than substantive engagement8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)

Discovery obstruction

Boilerplate objections; delayed responses; challenges to reasonable requestsPrevents plaintiffs from accessing evidence necessary for case development26(g) (certification of good faith)

Key Evidence

  • Plaintiffs' documented pre-ChatGPT prior litigation competence (2020-2021, Comcast/Dominion/Roadstead/SAC 181) proves procedural capability

  • AI limitations position documented pre-suit (September 2025), showing informed stance, not concealment

  • Immediate, legally accurate corrections to defense misstatements demonstrate substantive competence

  • Timeline of counsel motions correlates with deadline pressure, not genuine legal concern

The "Brand Promise" vs. The Reality

The Firm

The Promise (Website)

The Reality (Case Evidence)

Phelps Dunbar

"Efficient, attentive service... sound legal advice."

Discovery stonewalling: Ignored discovery deadlines in communications; obstructionist tactics; claimed "it wasn't served" despite their own answer deadline relying on the same service timeline.

Resnick & Louis

"Transparent communication... explaining the legal process."

Deceptive "Legal" Advice: Attempted to block service on a registered agent by falsely claiming individual representation overrides statutory law (S.C. Code § 33-44-111).

Both Firms

"Collaboration... High Ethical Standards."

The "Caution" Campaign: A coordinated effort to attempt to intimidate pro se plaintiffs with condescending "warnings" about AI usage and "emergency" labels, violating Rule 4.3 (giving legal advice to unrepresented parties).

Media Inquiries

For questions about this exhibit or the analysis behind it, contact:
Chris McNeil, Pro Se Plaintiff
Email: Click here to email with web form
Case: 2025-CP-10-05095, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas

Document Access

Brand Promise Violations Analysis (of Law Firms Phelps Dunbar and Resnick & Louis)

To Top


It appears you don't have a PDF plugin for this browser.


PDF Fallback Unable to view the pdf on your mobile device?

Download the PDF


    Systems View: Defense Counsel vs. Pro Se

    This filing doesn’t just document sharp elbows in litigation; it spotlights how some defense teams treat pro se tenants as targets to be managed rather than parties entitled to truth and respect. The 4‑level iceberg model shows how that behavior emerges and where change can be applied.

    Iceberg Table – Lawfare Against Pro Se Tenants

    Iceberg LevelHow It Shows Up in This CaseWhat That Reveals About the SystemLeverage for Intervention

    Events (what people see)

    		Condescending emails implying a pro se party cannot possibly be producing sophisticated work; an AI‑paranoia motion filed without evidence; office “EMAILED” stamp presented as if it were USPS proof of timely mailing; discovery deadlines missed while energy goes into attacking the opponent instead of answering.On the surface it looks like routine “hardball” litigation, but each move appears calculated to push a self‑represented tenant toward exhaustion rather than resolution.Judges, media, and bar regulators can name this as lawfare - using procedure as a weapon - and ask, “Is this helping the court find truth, or just trying to run a weaker party off the field?”

    Patterns over time

    		Repeated attempts to reframe competence as suspicion (“this is too good for a pro se”), serial delay in providing discovery while accusing the tenant of misconduct, and a pattern of filing motions that create burden but add little substance.Zoomed out, these are not isolated missteps; they form a playbook for attempting to exploit what they perceive as a pro se “discount”: assuming an unrepresented party can be intimidated into giving up.Courts can start tracking patterns of meritless motions against pro se parties, adjust sanctions thresholds, and treat repeated baseless attacks on competence as aggravating factors when considering fees or penalties.

    Structures and incentives

    		Insurance‑funded defense firms bill by the hour; there is often no direct financial penalty to counsel for running up motion practice; pro se parties rarely have counsel to push back on ethics violations; court culture often treats “vigorous advocacy” as a shield for almost any tactic.The structure rewards time‑consuming procedural skirmishes and under‑prices the cost of trying to grind down unrepresented tenants, especially when those tenants lack institutional backing.Rule changes and judicial norms can realign incentives: early case management orders that punish discovery gamesmanship, clearer enforcement of Rule 4.3 with pro se parties, and fee‑shifting where lawfare tactics are documented, so billing against vulnerable tenants stops being profitable.

    Mental models (root cause)

    		“Pro se means incompetent”; “status equals truth; Big Law letters carry more weight than tenant evidence”; “our job is to win by any procedural means, not to help the court get to reality.”These beliefs make it feel normal to talk down to a pro se litigant with a prior track record of documented (pre-AI) competence, to assume any organized evidence must be AI fakery, and to use intimidation instead of engagement.The alternative mental model is: “Pro se is a system‑health indicator.” When courts, media, and bar leaders adopt “truth‑over‑status” and “professional courtesy whether or not the other side is unrepresented,” the playbook of condescension and misdirection is seen as an unfortunate misstep.

    Why This Matters Beyond One Case

    If defense counsel can routinely gaslight competent tenants who document their cases carefully, it sends a message that justice depends on status, not facts. By calling out this specific pattern and offering a different mental model of vigorous advocacy that still respects truth and pro se dignity, this case invites judges, bar regulators, and future defense teams to retire lawfare tactics and adopt strategies that protect both their clients and the integrity of the courts.

    When pro se litigants bring system‑intervention methods, the alternative mental model can go one step further:

    “System‑literate pro se parties are catalysts for legal system health.”

    What Changes When Pro Se Use Systems Tools and Strategic Thought Leadership?

    • Transparency goes up. When a pro se litigant documents timelines, publishes public‑record‑based ownership trees, and exposes valuation gaps and pattern evidence, it becomes much harder for anyone - counsel or court - to pretend the problem is just a single unpleasant dispute.

    • Lawfare gets costlier. Every frivolous motion, mischaracterization, or delay tactic becomes another data point in a visible pattern that can support sanctions, bar complaints, and media narratives about “status‑over‑truth” behavior.

    • Resilience replaces isolation. Methodologies like the Iceberg Model, Fourth‑Position Systems View, and the Housing Justice Audit give pro se tenants a roadmap: how to collect evidence, frame patterns, and connect their case to wider reforms instead of burning out in isolated skirmishes.

    The upgraded mental model

    Thus the Systems Thinking aware, Strategic Thought Leadership empowered tenant takes it further:

    “When pro se litigants use systematic documentation and systems thinking, they stop being easy targets and start functioning as early‑warning sensors for where the housing‑justice system is failing ... and as co‑designers of how to fix it.”

    That keeps the emphasis on:

    • Truth‑over‑status (evidence beats rank)

    • Professional courtesy as baseline (even against skilled pro se)

    • System‑savvy pro se as partners in reform, not anomalies to be swatted down.

    The Power of Fourth Position (The Systems Perspective)

    Iceberg LevelHow It Shows Up for a Systems‑Aware Pro SeMental Model Shift

    Mental models (root cause)

    Old model: “As a tenant representing myself, I am at the mercy of landlords, property managers, and their lawyers; my best hope is to survive this one case.” Intermediate model: “If I document everything carefully, I might protect myself.”

    New model: “When pro se litigants use systematic documentation, Systems Thinking, and Strategic Thought Leadership, they act as early‑warning sensors for where the housing‑justice system is failing and co‑participate in fixing it ... turning one case into leverage for broader reform.”

    Explore More Case Pages

    Court Memo Details $350K+ Probate Valuation Gap Linked to Affordable Housing Board Member

    Court Memo Details $350K+ Probate Valuation Gap Linked to Affordable Housing Board Member

    Court Memo Details $350K Probate Valuation Gap Linked to City Affordable Housing Board Leadership.

    Pro Se Tenants Continue to Face Exploitative Tactics When They Seek Justice

    Pro Se Tenants Continue to Face Exploitative Tactics When They Seek Justice

    An Analysis of How Court Procedures, Counsel Conduct, and Information Asymmetry Perpetuate Housing Injustice Even After Litigation Begins

    Defense AI Disclosure Motion: Pre-AI Case History Disproves Competence Suspicion

    Defense AI Disclosure Motion: Pre-AI Case History Disproves Competence Suspicion

    Lawyers Question Pro Se Competence, Miss Basic Docket Search Showing Strategic Legal Arguments Pre-AI Against Their Own Client

    Why Systems Thinking in Housing Justice?

    Why Systems Thinking in Housing Justice?

    As systems thinker Russell Ackoff said, "A bad system will beat a good person every time." Unless we change the mental models driving exploitation, those same roles will be filled by others who follow the same broken playbook.

    The Altman Files: When Public Trust Meets Private Extraction

    The Altman Files: When Public Trust Meets Private Extraction

    Court Filing Reveals City Housing Commissioner Linked to 95% Asset Devaluation, "Flash Transfers," and Displacement of 5-Year Tenants in Good Standing.