Mystery Solved!

It’s Official! Self Represented Litigants are OUT. Litigants in Person are back IN.

And I have PROOF. Which is good, because I’ve been chasing my tail trying to track the source of the rumours trickling out and beyond working out there was some form of guidance being circulated around the judiciary, and being told that the MoJ were terribly exercised by the fact that LiP was a term used in primary legislation (although scarcely) I had drawn a blank.

So, here it is. March 2013 guidance for the judiciary from the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson. I’m not sure what it is Annex A of, but it has been pinged around this morning. Could someone forward it to Lord Neuberger? I don’t think he got the memo before his interview earlier this week.

Remember campers, the most important thing when preparing for the flood of LiPs forecast in the months to come is knowing what to call them. Name your fear people. Name your fear.

3 thoughts on “Mystery Solved!

  1. […] It’s official! Self represented litigants are out. Litigants in person are back in [Pink Tape] […]

  2. Nomenclature is all important!

    Will Self suggested this week that men named “Tim” may be significantly disadvantaged from the start:

    Also this week, David Cameron and Ed Milliband tussled over the terms “Bedoom Tax” and “Spare Room Subsidy”:

    With regards to “Litigant in Person” versus “Self Represented Litigant” in family court proceedings, I would prefer the little-known, highly-charged and very technical terms, “Mother” and “Father”.

    Or, what about, “Separated or divorced parent wishing to promote the welfare of his or her child by means of having regular and meaningful contact with said child, and being either unwilling or unable to purchase or otherwise obtain the services of solicitors and/or barristers”?

    Bruno D’Itri

  3. There are already perfectly good term to refer to the parties in proceedings – “Party”, “Applicant”, “Claimant”, “Respondent”, “Defendant”. It is a sorry sign of the conceit of the legal industry that they need to invent a term for people accessing justice without an expensive intermediary.

    If people without representation are so rare they need a special label, justice is only available to the rich or those subsidised by the government with legal aid. Everyone else must pay for access to justice.

    What have you become that this is a serious subject of debate?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.