Report comment

@David Darby,

But why do lawyers need to enforce the law? If the lawyers helped the parties obtain an agreement, there would be nothing to enforce - as it is agreed.

And if proceedings were on foot, any agrement can be embodied in a consent order.

What I find the most funny is the:- "I am an LIP and I know everything I need to know and I can read all the law on the internet and lawyers are robbing bar stewards, blah blah blah" on the one hand, contrasted with "I am an LIP and am a victim of a cruel state that has deliberately refused to allow justice. The judges are corrupt and biased and the solicitors are liars and perjurers".

Every time a topic involving litigants in person comes up, it is the same. And basically, if the Litigant in Person was involved in a case and won, it is "proof" that lawyers are a waste of time, unneeded, and that you can present your own case better. And if the Litigant in Person lost, then the justice system is a travesty, the judges are corrupt, etc.

Every time it is the same - without fail.