So I wrote a thing for The Gazette about Litigants in Person.
And the sub editors called it “Giving litigants in person a helping hand” with a tag line of “As officers of the court we have a duty to help litigants in person.”
Which set off the usual tirade of “gah! more leftys telling us we have to work for free” harumphing comments. *eyeroll*
Except of course I didn’t *actually* say that we should do pro bono at all…
There is a perfectly legitimate case for saying that as a matter of principle we should not do pro bono work, because it enables us to alleviate government of its responsibility to provide legal aid. I think, as it happens, that argument is wrong (not least because pro bono just can’t ever hope to plug the gap), but it is an arguable and strongly held view of many legal professionals – which I respect whilst in disagreement with it. It is an argument the logical conclusion of which would be that we should ban charities because they alleviate state failure to provide other forms of support. I think on this point there is a growing divide in the legal professions between “boycott” or “help”. My view is that the anti-pro bono arguments depend upon a false dichotomy. We can do both helping and criticising without inadvertently solving the enormous problems suffered not just by litigants in person but also by the opposing parties.
But whatever I might think about pro bono, I didn’t write an article about that. Until now…
There is a massive growing divide. Solicitors are not able to use barristers/ QC’s unless in extreme circumstances. We as an organisation have increasing amounts of families desperate for us to take their case on and help them. I would like to remind people that JFF, regardless of your opinion, are highly respected by many and have rights of audience.
I assume, although we are not a charity, that your claim was to ban us too?
Tut tut. We are not going anywhere.
Lucy Reed, I honestly thought better of you.
Erm. Amber I actually have no idea what you are on about??? I have not suggested anything should be banned and have made no reference to your organisation or others like it. Others have suggested lawyers should be banned from offering services pro bono (I don’t agree).
I also don’t really understand why solicitors are not able to use barristers. They are – although there are financial disincentives to briefing out rather than keeping in house because care work is so uneconomic these days. QCs I agree are very difficult to get funded.
Sorry- I missed the word ‘disagree’ . Apology accepted? It is ‘tut tut’ to those who oppose us.
It’s all about money.
I owe you a drink next time you’re in London. Let me know when. May be good for you to see how we work and understand us more.
Ermm Amber, maybe you should look at the foundation of the organisation and think before commenting, the same organisation I helped to create, because my face no longer matched the curtains 7 years later I was ousted, ah well as the saying goes, your comment suggesting that you “”are highly respected by many and have rights of audience”” is a fallacy, it is determined on the merits of the Litigant in Person, not the organisation, right of audience is earned and not given on a whim and a prayer, more so, the organisation while doing its job does just that, nothing more nothing less, highly respected has many permutations ,
Currently there has been an ease of late, sorry it was quite a while ago whereby barristers et al are permitted to run these blogs, I remember the days when it was forbidden for them to do so, many moons ago it would not be allowed, but hey you know that I presume, Solicitors, Barristers and all in the professional field do more than you could actually imagine,
I forget the countless times I have called upon people like Lucy for a bend of the ear, a quick question to a problem, these are the ones who I feel are highly respected despite the field in which they work.
We are faced in an age where, like now, 60%+ of legal aid has been wiped off the books and people like Lucy and others are left to pick up the pieces, it is only with the passion and drive they have that permits me to even comment on this post.
I am lost to your original posting in the massive divide, I for one have never seen that, what I have seen is quite the opposite, the drawing together of resources is, with great difficulty ensuring the status quo remains the same, ensuring those who need the help and assistance get it no matter of the guise it is in, I am certain that Lucy would love to retire and sit on a private island sipping cocktails, that myth of in for the money has long been extinguished.
Your final comments show how, organisations like that you represent have a massive hurdle to climb to ever be taken seriously.
Charities are a well established means by which people can help people. This is morally appropriate. We shouldn’t just rely on the State.
Working voluntarily to assist people or organisations is also morally right.
Helping litigants in person to conduct their case is repugnant if the litigant in person is acting in person because he/she can’t access or afford legal advice and representation because the Srare refuses to assist. This helps ensure the system works.
What we should be doing, in my view, is to allow the train wreck that the Government’s policies will create so that the Government has to rethink.
It was a useful piece Lucy, and clearly highlighted the dilemma for the lawyer facing a LiP. I’m sure most readers took it that way.