Report comment

Who by now does not know that servants hired by litigants-in-person to help them, in ways that are permitted, with the hirer's lawsuits, are unregulated, and may be uninsured against liability if they breach their duty of care? That they are not necessarily legally educated or trained? That they cannot conduct litigation on behalf of their clients? That they have no right of audience in most courts? That they are usually not allowed to speak at all in any hearing, except to their clients, following the McKenzie case law, unless the court permits them, for reasons of the overriding objective?

Such a service is not an alternative to hiring a solicitor to conduct litigation, unfair and unqualified competition. Suing in person is itself the alternative to instructing a solicitor to conduct the litigation. Getting help with suing in person is a wise decision if there is help available that one judges will add value. If a litigant decides to hire such help, that is his business. Why should the state try to discourage him, or artificially to prevent his servant from being paid a fair wage?

As for costs, a litigant-in-person is entitled to charge for his own time if awarded costs. Why on earth shouldn't he equally be allowed to charge for the time of the friend or servant who helps him, as long as there is no duplication of effort, and the hourly rate paid to the helper does not exceed that applicable to the time of the litigant-in-person himself?

http://JohnAllman.UK