Comments on: Litigants in person

By: More on Litigants in Person « The Legal Soapbox

More on Litigants in Person « The Legal Soapbox — Mon, 21 May 2007 08:53:49 +0000

[...] article in yesterday’s AFR in relation to unrepresented litigants. It seems that my previous post on litigants in person was [...]

By: Free Thinker

Free Thinker — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:49:30 +0000

I have used our legal system (British) over a personal injury case and I can tell you that at the end of it I absolutely loathe lawyers and the system. Litigants start off sane and rational and ordinary but the lawyers and the system will soon destroy that.

Litigation is like walking through treacle, the longer it goes on, the thicker it becomes. The absurd costs are largely to blame. Who wants to go to court and maybe having to pay 10, 20 or 40,000 pounds at the end of it? Only the lawyers. We don't want lawyers, we want the courts to facilitate us bringing our own cases, then the issue of absurd costs (and irrationality, anger and insanity) melt away.

Then there is the issue of delay which increases frustration at an exponential rate. This blame can largely be laid squarely at the feeet of lawyers who having a 100 plus cases on the go at any one time and can't keep up with the case. Hence the non return of phone calls, delayed or ignored replies to letters, losing documentation and evidence, repeatedly asking for information that has previously been given, etc,etc. An l.i.p. only has one case on the go, is completely in control and knows every detail about his case and knows only one speed to go - fast!

There are 3 things that make up justice: 1. A fair hearing 2. Negligible costs 3. A speedy hearing. The present system has none these virtues and therefore drives any reasonable litigant insane, especially as the naieve and pathetic litigant has started off brainwashed with the notion that we have the best judicial system in the world, the envy of the rest of the world. He belatedly learns otherwise.

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:16:18 +0000

Have you read my post on being a party to a legal action? In short, I agree with you that being a party to litigation gives you a very different perspective. I was amazed by how awful the experience was, and how disempowered I felt. And I’m a lawyer - at least I had some notion of what was going on and what my rights were. I am sorry that you suffered the same experience.It is also true that lawyers can have so many cases on the go at once that clients can slip through the cracks. I always tried my best, but it’s a bit like juggling 50 balls at once and trying not to drop one. My desk was always covered in post-it notes - CALL Client X, REMEMBER to file documents etc… Funnily enough, despite all the rubbish that they feed us about “satisfying the client”, the way in which law firms operate often doesn’t promote client satisfaction in many instances.Unfortunately, in addition, sometimes delay is a deliberate strategy used to wear down the opposition, particularly if you are a litigant with unlimited “deep pockets”. The idea is to keep stringing out the litigation and eventually your opponent will run out of money or give up in despair… I have a friend who had a very unsatisfactory experience whereby her solicitors essentially took no action on her claim. By the time she realised they weren’t doing anything, her main claim had expired. She ended up being a litigant in person for exactly the reason you stated: she was in total control of her own case and the evidence and she made it her priority. You may be pleased to know that in the end, she was successful.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:05:52 +0000

Have a look at today’s Australian Financial Review. There is an interview with President Maxwell who also recognises the problem. In short the Victorian Supreme Court has just appointed a “litigant in person coordinator”, whose primary role, according to the President, is to manage those litigant’s expectation.

It is good to see the courts doing something to alleviate the problems. It would be interesting to follow the effectiveness of this role.

By: cherry ripe

cherry ripe — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:54:09 +0000

I think this is clearly a problem that has more to do with the mental health and community support systems than the courts. I do believe that we are gradually losing our ability to help people through difficult times - we don’t have the time or the energy to listen, to sit and to feel another’s pain. We’re all too bloody busy and stressed to pussy’s bow, so we can’t cope with anyone else’s stress, and so a vicious cycle continues. So instead men dress in black shirts and attempt to intimidate judges.

Maybe these ideas can help: if someone simply misunderstands the situation, or needs an outlet to express frustrations, then lawyers need to be prepared to explain the legal situation patiently and carefully, in language that can be understood, and in doing so put in time to listen (preferably not in billable 6-minute units). Often a person simply feels deeply, gravely wronged, and they need to have that acknowledged - this then becomes confused with needing to have the situation righted.

However in my experience if it seems, after trying, that a person doesn’t see that they have a problem, the best way of dealing with it is not actually facing them head on (which will only leave them angry and will give the issue oxygen) but telling them that it sounds like a complicated matter and you don’t have the resources to deal with it. Some people “lawyer-shop” just as some “doctor-shop”. A deluded patient and a deluded client will look for someone else to validate their views. In some ways all you can do is prescribe a placebo and head them on their way.