California's so-called "Vexatious Litigant" statute is a "Lawyers' Monopoly Statute" - a statute benefiting only the bar associations - not the public.
Statutes or court rules that make you lose your case solely because you don't hire a lawyer are, of course, bad. However, California's statute is much worse.
It officially blacklists and stigmatizes a person as a "vexatious litigant" for life. It denies a person access to California courts for life. All this as a penalty for doing nothing more blameworthy than FAILING TO HIRE A LAWYER.
Under the amended statute you do not need to lose 5 cases in a 7 year period as you did under the original statue (although this is still one of the definitions).
You need only file one single questionable motion paper in the one and only lawsuit you ever filed in your life to be so punished.
Pro se litigants (who are usually lay people - not lawyers) are expected to meet the absolute highest standards of preparing their papers. Lawyers file questionable motions all the time but cannot be punished for this. For a lawyer to be sanctioned (for example under Cal.Civ.Proc.Code sec. 128.5) the questionable motion must not only be "frivolous" but it must also have been made "in bad faith" .
The requirement of "bad faith" is not necessary to be labeled a "vexatious litigant".
Now, what is a frivolous motion or a frivolous lawsuit? Anyone who is sued by someone else thinks the other side's case is frivolous. ALL LAWSUITS ARE VEXATIOUS AND FRIVOLOUS TO ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER!! Wouldn't it be frivolous to sue a restaurant because you burned yourself by spilling a cup of their coffee on yourself? However, one lady got an award of millions of dollars over such an incident at a McDonald's restaurant.
Someone else (with not as persuasive a lawyer) would have been thrown out of court for bringing such a "frivolous" suit. In other words, what is or is not "frivolous" is an entirely subjective judgment. Punishing people for bringing (in good faith) a lawsuit which a particular judge considers "frivolous" does not serve the cause of justice. Such sanction laws do not simplify litigation they create mountains of new litigation about the new issues created (what is or is not frivolous, etc).
Unnecessary laws are not good laws, but traps for money" - Thomas Hobbes. The chief purpose of our judicial system is not to provide justice for the public - it is simply to enrich the lawyer industry.
Cal.Civ.Proc.Code sec's. 391 et seq is unconstitutional.
It denies access to the courts, is overbroad, denies equal protection to pro se litigants, constitutes a "prior restraint", denies due process of law on
several grounds. Under this statute the name of any litigant who fails to hire a lawyer (i.e., any pro se litigant) may be put on an official blacklist (see sec.
391.7) distributed by Judicial Council of California for the purpose of being barred for life (sec.391(b)(4)) from filing any litigation in California (except in
small claims court) and to be stigmatized for life as a "vexatious litigant". This can result from conduct which is not at all blameworthy - something as inconsequential as having filed one or two motion papers in a single litigation which a judge deems to be unmeritorious (see 391(b)(3)) - or having been unsuccessful in five litigations in a seven year period (see 391(b)(1)) - regardless of the merit of those litigations. The statute applies only to those who refuse to hire a lawyer.