Tips for dealing with Litigants in Person
This article is taken from July's public matters newsletter. Click here to view more articles from this issue.
This article provides some tips to bear in mind when dealing with Litigants in Person and a reminder of a number of pieces of guidance, to assist in-house teams in dealing with Litigants in Person in disputes or court/tribunal proceedings.
Recent cuts to legal aid, the increase in the small claims limit and ongoing austerity are all factors which have triggered the number of Litigants in Person appearing in courts and tribunals to increase.
Dealing with Litigants in Person can sometimes be a frustrating and time-consuming experience. Some Litigants in Person have a working knowledge of court procedure and require little additional assistance in representing themselves, but other Litigants in Person can cause real difficulties. Maintaining that balance of treating Litigants in Person fairly while also acting in the best interests of your client can be a minefield. It can be difficult to know what you should or should not say or do and you might even find yourself being subjected to rude, unpleasant or even aggressive conduct or behaviour.
What are Litigants in Person?
A Litigant in Person is an individual, company or organisation that has rights of audience and is not represented in the courts of England and Wales by a solicitor or barrister.
Duties when dealing with Litigants in Person
A lawyer owes a duty to his/her client and also to the court and the administration of justice. The two duties may conflict where the lawyer is under a duty not to mislead the court but in doing so, the lawyer is, for example, obliged to present documents to the court which adversely affect or undermine the client’s case. Where there is such a conflict, the lawyer’s duty to the court must prevail.
When it comes to dealing with third parties, lawyers must not take unfair advantage of third parties, including Litigants in Person. Behaviour which might constitute the taking of unfair advantage includes bullying, the making of unjustifiable threats, misleading behaviour, claiming a sum which cannot properly be claimed or demanding something which cannot properly be demanded.
However, using the law and legal procedure effectively against a Litigant in Person because you have the knowledge/skills to do so is not taking unfair advantage. Contrary to what some Litigants in Person may think, there is also no obligation to assist a Litigant in Person to run their case or to take action on their behalf. So what exactly should you do?
Some tips and suggestions
Explain
Explain but don’t advise. Explain what the Litigant in Person needs to do next, refer them to the Civil Procedure Rules where necessary and try to ensure they understand the next steps. For example, you might tell a Litigant in Person that they need to file and serve witness evidence by a certain date otherwise they may not be able to rely on that witness evidence at trial. You might also refer them to the relevant provisions of the CPR and suggest that they take legal advice. However, you should not advise the Litigant in Person what they should cover in their witness evidence nor provide them with a template witness statement to use – this would be assisting the Litigant in Person to run their case.
Communicate
When communicating with a Litigant in Person, ensure you are professional, co-operative and courteous. Perhaps at the start of the matter you could send the Law Society’s ‘Notes for Litigants in Person’ to the Litigant in Person, so that they are clear from day one what they can and cannot expect from you. Try to avoid unnecessary or inflammatory language and arguments. Avoid legal jargon where possible and ensure your language is clear. Encourage the Litigant in Person to seek independent legal advice, at the outset of the dispute and at appropriate stages as the dispute progresses.
You are under no obligation to accept or tolerate behaviour from a Litigant in Person which is abusive, aggressive or unacceptable in some other way. Litigants in Person can often become frustrated that lawyers are not able to respond to them immediately or deal with their correspondence straight away. You are under no obligation to respond to a Litigant in Person immediately but you might instead choose to acknowledge receipt of the Litigant in Person’s correspondence, explain that you need to consider it and take instructions and confirm that you will get back to them when you can, perhaps giving an indication of when that might be. This approach will hopefully satisfy the Litigant in Person that you have received their correspondence and are dealing with it.
Prepare
Do not assume that the Litigant in Person will take the usual steps in the court/tribunal process which a represented party would. Be prepared to be responsible for hearing bundles and take conduct of drawing up and sealing orders, even if this would not happen if the Litigant in Person were represented. Think about how you might assist the court by taking responsibility for tasks/actions which a Litigant in Person is unlikely to complete. Make sure you serve documents correctly and on time. To protect yourself and your client, take a note of any conversations with the Litigant in Person so there is a record of what was discussed and when. Try to give plenty of notice to the Litigant in Person of applications, arguments and/or submissions if you can, to minimise the risk of surprises.
Anticipate
Anticipate that the Litigant in Person might request adjournments or make applications for extensions of time. If you have a hearing or trial coming up, consider whether a hearing might take longer than usual because the other party is a Litigant in Person and try to anticipate likely issues which might arise during hearings.
Guidance
If in doubt about how you should proceed in a scenario concerning a Litigant in Person, take a look at the Law Society’s Guidance.
If you are really unsure how you should proceed, run your situation past a colleague, sleep on it, take some time to think about the options available to you or give us a quick call to discuss. That way, you stand the best chance possible of ensuring you maintain that balance between acting fairly towards the Litigant in Person but also in the best interests of your client.
You may be interested in...
Opinion
Settling future claims: Insights from Clifford v IBM 2024
Opinion - Maternity services
New online system streamlines maternity services at The University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Legal Update - Building Safety Act
Case update: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Homes and Communities v Grey GR Limited Partnership
Legal Update
Commercial contracts: Top tips before signing on the dotted line
In Person Event
Claims club, Exeter
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Duty of Candour review: Submission to the Department of Health and Social Care
Published Article
English Commercial Court rules against Russian exclusive jurisdiction clauses
Opinion
R (Willmott) v Eastbourne Council: High Court rules council can deny social housing to disabled ex-tenant over anti-social behaviour
Legal Update
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council: A game changing decision for local authorities
Legal Update
Restrictive covenants – look before you leap!
Legal Update
Court of Appeal decision again demonstrates the need for reform of the Solicitors Minimum Terms
Press Release
Landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of Doctors’ Duty of Care
Legal Update
Proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996
Legal Update
The downfall of Vesttoo: Fraudulent letters of credit
Legal Update
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
Legal Update
The commercial realities of disputes and litigation
Legal Update
The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
Opinion
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
Legal Update
Part 36 combined offers – when are they beaten?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Legal Update
Employment alternative dispute resolution
Legal Update
Insolvency practitioners and trustee immunity
Guide
How to manage retail sector supply contracts and avoid disputes
Press Release
Browne Jacobson grows inheritance and trust dispute practice with partner hire
Legal Update
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Published Article
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Opinion
Mediation – remote or in person?
Opinion
Confirmation of Acas early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
Published Article
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Legal Update
Embargoed judgments: A professional word of caution
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Opinion
Civil court litigation 2023: Reforms on the horizon
Legal Update
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Legal Update
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd [2022] EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
Opinion
The Future of Mediation
Legal Update
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Legal Update
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).