Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

I'm fed up of being devalued. In no other profession - sorry, industry, pardon my French - would we try to make what we do worthless. I don't even mean monetarily. I'm all for having the option to use the cheapest quote if I am seeking a service, and we are a service industry. Doesn't mean I will always CHOOSE that cheapest quote though. Yet here we are making out that a solicitor adds no value. If the rules were simple, we wouldn't be needed. But the rules and the case law supporting them, and statute, is complex and nuanced and would you believe it, THAT is what we are trained to interpret and then use in a way that benefits the client - sorry, customer - so that they achieve the result they want. In doing so, we may be able to 'pick holes' in our opponent's argument and that is because they have either not understood the law or rule in question or have interpreted it in a different way to that which has been upheld previously in a settled case. What's wrong with that? How is that taking advantage? We have all had training. If I spot something you haven't, or vice versa, I'm using my knowledge and experience as a service and so are you, and that, dear audience, is all that we have to sell. The fact that LiPs haven't had that training shouldn't mean that I can't use every weapon in my arsenal to win my case; why should my client be disadvantaged by the other party's choice?

My own personal experience of dealing with LiPs is that they use their 'sorry, didn't know' excuses to much advantage. I can't think of a single time when they've not been able to get an extension of time or a lenient order for failing to do something. It may be the case for others, but I can only speak from my own experience. I am always helpful to LiPs but draw the line at giving them any assistance that would prejudice my client's case. I've had LiPs ask me what they should put in a defence, actually asking me to dictate it. I've declined as not only would that put me in an invidious position with my client, I'd be able to exploit the LiP by drafting in a skewed way. Instead, I've interpreted the relevant parts of the CPR and told them what they need to address in the document and told them where to go on the Gov.uk website for further information. Surely that is how it should be?

I have a great deal of sympathy with LiPs who are unable to obtain legal advice due to costs, but that is a systemic problem and can only be changed by a full review and alteration of the system. But not by altering it this way - this way would be chaos. If two parties are involved in the same litigation but with different rules, then they are not, surely, involved in the same litigation? Change the rules if need be, but change them for everybody. If the LiP is getting 28 days to do something, the other party must surely get the same. If the LiP can file a document without it being supported by a witness statement, surely the other party can have the same accommodation. It's all Janet and John or it's all Proust. It cannot be both.

Oh, and for those of you who think that I am dead against EVERYBODY having access to justice, think again. My firm does a lot of pro bono work and I give free legal advice at a number of clinics. I just don't like the inequality of approach.

Your details

Cancel