You just know when people start re-describing established norms we have a problem with truth. Not that norms shouldn’t be challenged. What a dead world we’d have if that happened. Or didn’t happen.

The way something is described also determines how we think about it. And therefore how we act, what we accept, and don’t accept.

Usually, this is a politician’s trick. In Syria, for instance, the regime describes those who oppose it not as “campaigners” with “legitimate cause”, but “extremist gangs”.

It’s all in a name, so the saying goes.

Of course, in the UK, and in the West generally, it’s unusual for disagreement to be turned into such blatant propaganda. Instead of the polarisation of right and wrong, we have spin, the careful distortion of words and language. The aim being to slowly poison with drips of arsenic, rather than to the kill instantly with a dose of cyanide.

Does it really matter if a “litigant in person” should suddenly become a “self-litigant”, or “self-represented litigants”? It seems such a small re-formulation. What’s the fuss?

Maybe it doesn’t matter. But it represents a shift. A small shift, but a shift, nonetheless.

The distinction is that a “self-represented litigant” has been brought into the fold. Whereas a “litigant in person” is not.

The emphasis in “litigant in person” is on person. Which is by contrast to lawyer, solicitor, barrister, paralegal, legal executive etc.

The emphasis in “self-represented litigant” is on represented and litigant.

This new nomenclature – name – creates a new category of person whose presence is admitted into the Courts process.

That sounds like an argument for demarcation, restoration of the old guild system – only people with the right kind of handshake get through the door.

In a sense that it right, but for the wrong reasons. Law without lawyers is a bit like DIY plumbing. Some people are good at plumbing despite not being plumbers. Some people can do plumbing given enough time, and patience, and trial, and error, and going back to read the manual etc etc,

There is no reason in principle why everyone shouldn’t represent themselves. But usually, lawyers who have trained in the law can (and should) cut to the quick. That has value for everyone, whether Judges or Claimants – even for society at large.

This re-naming of “litigants in person” changes that. It says all you out there can do your own plumbing, we’ll support you (ho ho)….

The Civil Justice Council have specifically addressed the language issue. Depressingly, in so doing they have shown themselves to be shockingly politically naïve.

At paragraph 26 of their report the CJC state:

Two general points about language lie behind this change. First, the importance of using language that those representing themselves will recognise. Second, the desirability of using language that emphasises that representation of a party does not only exist when there is a lawyer, and language that does not imply a deficiency in the fact of self-representation.

I doubt very much that Clarke or Djanogly expected this usually liberal opened minded advisory body would do them such a significant political favour.

It’s all fine! “Litigants in person” won’t really cause a problem. We’ll rename them. Then we’ll support them. Then we’ll work with them. Who the hell needs lawyers in the legal process? Cuts to Legal Aid. Nothing to worry about. Good news all round.

I’m far from clear how the Courts will cope with having to find real money and real time to support “litigants in person”. The Civil Courts administration is lamentable as it is.

And, if I am not much mistaken, the Government is cutting money to those highly effectively mostly not-for-profit organisations that used to provide advice and assistance for these same people who will now be the crowds of “litigants in person”.

The Law Society Gazette says that 650,000 fewer people will be entitled to Legal Aid once the change becomes law. That’s a lot of people queuing to get through the Court doors, let alone the already just-slightly-bad-tempered security systems you must pass through on your way to Judicial interrogation.

Something is badly wrong!

Consider this: it would take little more than one sixth of RBS post bail-out PROFITS – not turnover, PROFIT – for ONE QUARTER – 3 months – to 30th September 2011 – to cover the entire civil legal aid cuts for one year.

The Government says we need to re-capitalise the banks. They say we need to manage the National Debt.

If the cost of re-capitalising the banks, is insolvency to the Governments coffers, one must give.

I, for one, would vote for insolvency of the banks. Infact, I’d vote for the complete nationalisation of the banks, with all the profit being income of the Government.

About 450 BC, Herodotus used the expression “equality before the law”. No doubt Greek philosophers before and after him likewise debated this concept.

Of course “equality before the law” is tremendously more subtle in 21st century England than in a society held together by a ruling class and slaves. But the concept survives. Even now. We are poorer society for brushing it aside in the interests of an economy dependent on financial services to pay for the lifestyles we’ve become all too comfortable living.

John Holtom

The image used for this post is a James Gillray borrowed from Wikigalleries

Article posted on Thursday, November, 17th, 2011 at 3:06 pm

Have your say!