Surge in 'DIY' justice sparks guidelines for lawyers

[Michael Browne]

A surge in the number of people representing themselves in court has prompted legal organisations to draft guidelines for lawyers who come up against people who find themselves in court without legal representation.

 

The guidelines have been developed by the Bar Council, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) and the Law Society in response to the rising numbers of people representing themselves in court without a lawyer as a result of cuts to legal aid, the increase in the small-claims limit and the introduction of employment tribunal fees.

 

The practical guidelines are relevant to the civil and family courts and tribunals where there has been an influx of people who cannot afford to instruct a lawyer, have not been able to obtain free legal advice and often have no alternative other than to embark on 'do it yourself' justice.

 

The guidelines discuss how far lawyers can help unrepresented people without this conflicting with their duties to their own clients. Lawyers are advised to communicate clearly and avoid technical language or legal jargon, or to explain jargon to the unrepresented party where it cannot be avoided.

 

 

The guidelines are available to download below.

 

• Litigants in person: guidelines for lawyers (PDF 387kb)
  
• Litigants in person – guidelines for lawyers: Notes for litigants in person (PDF 116 kb)
  
• Litigants in person – guidelines for lawyers: Notes for clients (PDF 117 kb)
  
• A selection of relevant cases: June 2015 (PDF 109kb)
  

[legalistic]

Michael, enormous changes are coming in the justice system which ought to make things much fairer for everyone - including the judges. They are fed up with dealing with so many LIPs when the adversarial system is not suited to it.Lord Justice Thomas, interviewed today by Joshua Rosenberg on Law in Action (BBC Radio 4, available online and repeated Thursday 25 June at 8.00 pm) said some truly radical things which are backed by other top judges. Michael Gove says he will be taking these up.

[citizenB]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3135296/Justice-failing-crime-victims-says-Gove-provides-world-beating-service-wealthy-foreigners.html

 

 

Gove orders rich lawyers to stop whingeing about legal aid cuts and work for FREE to help poor victims of crime

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3135296/Justice-failing-crime-victims-says-Gove-provides-world-beating-service-wealthy-foreigners.html#ixzz3duUVWvev

 

 

 

 

 

Wealthy lawyers were this morning ordered to do more to help poor families receive justice - by working for free instead of constantly asking for more taxpayers' cash to pay their bills.

 

New Justice Secretary Michael Gove said the amount of time lawyers worked free of charge - or 'pro bono' - for poor clients was not 'defensible'.

 

In his first speech in his new role, Mr Gove said there was now a 'two-nation' justice system which allowed the wealthy to enjoy 'gold standard' services while ordinary people were left 'at the mercy of grotesque inefficiencies'.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3135296/Justice-failing-crime-victims-says-Gove-provides-world-beating-service-wealthy-foreigners.html#ixzz3duUiWIab

 

[citizenB]

And... just in case anyone has a dig about my posting up a Daily Mail link..

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/human-rights-reform-michael-gove-justice-secretary

 

 

 

Michael Gove, new Justice Secretary, wanted to bring back hanging

 

As a Times columnist, Michael Gove called for return of the noose and criticised Stephen Lawrence inquiry

 

 

Michael Gove, the new Justice Secretary, called for the return of the death penalty as a newspaper columnist.

 

 

Mr Gove said he supported the return of the noose out of “respect for democracy”, and because it would force the courts to act with “scrupulous fairness”.

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11595776/Michael-Gove-new-Justice-Secretary-wanted-to-bring-back-hanging.html

[mikeymack2002]

Did you read the LIP PDF from 2013? very well worth reading for a starting point.

[Ganymede]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3135296/Justice-failing-crime-victims-says-Gove-provides-world-beating-service-wealthy-foreigners.html

 

Erm... Work for free??!

 

Is Gove going to pay our bills and rent/mortgage etc?!!

[Sparks_]

workfare for Lawyers?

[determindator]

Erm... Work for free??!

 

Is Gove going to pay our bills and rent/mortgage etc?!!

 

Not all would be free, just for those who cannot afford legal representation. How would you address the injustice of those in such a position.

[Ganymede]

Not all would be free, just for those who cannot afford legal representation. How would you address the injustice of those in such a position.

 

Less legal aid cuts. It's the government that should be sorting out the mess they created.

[determindator]

I don't know if enough emphasis is given to the idea of consumer cases going through mediation first rather than straight to court. Would free up the system.

[goodatresearch]

Makes me laugh, wealthy lawyers indeed. My old firm paid newly qualified lawyers £18,000 even when that lawyer had spent many years before their training contract actually doing the job. Lawyers aren't voluntary workers, they have bills like everyone else. Access to justice has been eroded by the government and nobody else and now they want to pass the buck.

 

 

Less legal aid cuts. It's the government that should be sorting out the mess they created.

[Ganymede]

Makes me laugh, wealthy lawyers indeed. My old firm paid newly qualified lawyers £18,000 even when that lawyer had spent many years before their training contract actually doing the job. Lawyers aren't voluntary workers, they have bills like everyone else. Access to justice has been eroded by the government and nobody else and now they want to pass the buck.

Indeed.

[determindator]

The buck will be passed in the name of austerity.

[determindator]

Less legal aid cuts. It's the government that should be sorting out the mess they created.

 

Quite.

 

How is it proposed to rectify this.

[citizenB]

Article from 2010. Of course it is from the Daily Mail so presumably scaremongering !!

 

 

Since being established in 1949, legal aid has grown into a £2billion-a-year industry far removed from its original, noble, purpose of providing Britain’s poor with access to justice.

 

For precious little is now off limits to taxpayer-funded assistance.

 

Immigrants who have never set foot in the UK appealing against visa decisions... prisoners claiming their bed is too hard, or that it is unfair to make them give up hard-drugs in jail.

 

An army of 15,000 barristers (up from 2,000 in 1960) is ever willing to help them, growing nicely plump in the process.

 

Meanwhile, ambulance chasing solicitors lodge compensation claims in their thousands, in the knowledge that, if successful, they could

claim vast sums from the defendant

 

The result is a public sector, from schools to hospitals, paralysed by health and safety mania, as officials desperately try to avoid a crippling lawsuit.

 

That is why we warmly welcome yesterday’s proposals by the Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, to slash £350million from the legal aid budget, while ending gratuitous abuse of the ‘no-win no-fee’ system.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1329896/Kenneth-Clarke-An-overdue-end-abuse-legal-aid.html#ixzz3dxpgCpe9

 

 

In future, state aid will be available only in cases where ‘life or liberty’ is at stake. Prisoners, people suing the NHS, would-be migrants, trivial personal injury cases and parents suing schools for excluding unruly children will all miss out.

 

At the same time, legal costs in ‘no win no fee’ civil cases, from libel to medical negligence, will be taken from any damages awarded to the victorious claimant — preventing lawyers from making a separate claim on the finances of the defendant.

 

 

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

Makes me laugh, wealthy lawyers indeed. My old firm paid newly qualified lawyers £18,000 even when that lawyer had spent many years before their training contract actually doing the job.

 

Weren't they paid in doubloons back then (before they went on to guineas)?

\Mind you there isn't a doubloon symbol on a standard KB is there?

 

I take it that was at the time when a head butler received a shilling and 10pence a year?

 

:/

[Ganymede]

Article from 2010. Of course it is from the Daily Mail so presumably scaremongering !!

 

Total nonsense from the Daily Fail.

[goodatresearch]

You can make silly jokes all you want, doesn't alter the truth. My knowledge is current. Of course some solicitors are on very high pay but not all.

 

Anyway, just because your on a high salary doesn't mean you should give out free services. My plumber, before he started to slow down, was earning over £50,000 a year, should he have offered his services free to certain members of society?

 

 

 

Weren't they paid in doubloons back then (before they went on to guineas)?

\Mind you there isn't a doubloon symbol on a standard KB is there?

 

I take it that was at the time when a head butler received a shilling and 10pence a year?

 

:/

[goodatresearch]

I liked the "trivial pi cases" and suing hospitals" comments. So what should we have, medical negligence going unanswered, people injured, losing wages, suffering health problems and the victim just takes it on the chin?

 

Let's face it, the government is just trying to limit the liability of their chums in the insurance industry etcetera. Won't effect the rich because they will still afford to claim.

 

 

 

 

Total nonsense from the Daily Fail.

[Ganymede]

I liked the "trivial pi cases" and suing hospitals" comments. So what should we have, medical negligence going unanswered, people injured, losing wages, suffering health problems and the victim just takes it on the chin?

 

Let's face it, the government is just trying to limit the liability of their chums in the insurance industry etcetera. Won't effect the rich because they will still afford to claim.

 

Preaching to the choir mate.

[spalding78]

Quite simply, no politician needs or wants the votes of the people who are at the bottom of our society, or those that help them.

[tobyjugg2]

My old firm paid newly qualified lawyers £18,000 even when that lawyer had spent many years before their training contract actually doing the job.

 

Now thats the real issue.

A few newly qualified lawyers getting 18,000 (most getting vastly more), and us getting incompetent unqualified 'lawyers'/assistants charged at £120+ per hour for sending a standard letter, with little except nodding relevance to our case.

 

Makes me laugh

 

I don't doubt it one whit.

[Ganymede]

Now thats the real issue.

A few newly qualified lawyers getting 18,000 (most getting vastly more), and us getting incompetent unqualified 'lawyers'/assistants charged at £120+ per hour for sending a standard letter, with little except nodding relevance to our case.

 

 

 

I don't doubt it one whit.

 

I wouldn't call mid 20s "vastly more."

[tobyjugg2]

I wouldn't call mid 20s "vastly more."

 

I think almost anyone, newly qualified or not, on £18,000 (or less) a year would call £25,000 (+39%) 'vastly more'. Although I don't doubt that lawyers wouldn't in relation to their own salary.

 

But the real issue was that in my experience we get the referenced unqualified (and incompetent and/or totally uncaring) lawyers at £120+ an hour.

[goodatresearch]

Depends what you mean by unqualified doest it. Most non solicitors have a law degree and some the LPC and many years iof practical experience. Also there's the qualified legal execs. The amount charged depends on experience and qualifications and all staff have a supervising solicitor anyway.

 

Any way £120 per hour isn't a lot if you look at how much some tradesmen charge per hour. Iv just a few quotes for a handyman and the average is £150 per hour. i doubt if they have studied A levels, 3 years to study for a degree, 1- 2 years. to study for the LPC, professional skills course etcetera. Anyway some solicitors now charge fixed fees.

 

 

I think almost anyone, newly qualified or not, on £18,000 (or less) a year would call £25,000 (+39%) 'vastly more'. Although I don't doubt that lawyers wouldn't in relation to their own salary.

 

But the real issue was that in my experience we get the referenced unqualified (and incompetent and/or totally uncaring) lawyers at £120+ an hour.