I do wonder where my blog inspiration comes from at times and I honestly have no idea what gave rise to this one but it is an important subject and one which I think a lot of my fellow employment lawyers might benefit from.
There is nothing big or clever in trying to get one over on a litigant in person in an Employment Tribunal case because you are the qualified solicitor who knows all the rules. Some people do not have the financial resources to be able to access legal advice but this does not make their pursuit of justice any less relevant or important. The Employment Tribunal system was designed so that lay users could use it without lawyers. Frankly I find it a big shame when things get overly technical and lawyers behave as if they are in the civil courts. Sure we all like to make novel points and to score one up on the oppo – we would not be litigators if this did not put fire in our bellies – but is scoring cheap points against someone who is not legally qualified really very satisfying? I would say not.
I have not dealt with many cases where my opponent is a litigant in person because I mostly do claimant work. I have helped LIPs frame their cases and set them on the path to the ET armed with a translation list of legal terms that will demystify the process: disclosure after all is purely showing the other side all your evidence, it’s not rocket science. Nor is listing the documents and putting them in chronological order. A witness statement is your story supported where applicable by reference to documents you have in evidence. They need to be referred to in the witness statement so that the tribunal will look at them during the trial.
Many years ago I acted for a company defending a sex discrimination claim. My oppo was an LIP and she was tricky (borderline offensive) but I took great pride in explaining to her at every step of the preparation process what she needed to do and how we would run the case together. I knew our case would win but that is beside the point: what harm to me or my client was it to aid this person who was navigating an unknown system? None. We had the better case. It did make me a better human being.
It is incumbent on the parties to litigation to prepare the case together for the tribunal to make its determination. I can name quite a few employment lawyers who would do well to think about how adversarial they make the process of case preparation. There’s no need to be an arsehole to professional reps either. There’s no need for rude, for shouty, for personal attacks. There are still eighties style litigators out there whose EQ has not yet developed to the requisite level of professional courtesy. Shame on them.
I like nothing better than a good dust up, a clean fight and then to shake hands and agree it was a good fight. But keep it clean. You’re a disgrace to the legal profession if you think lawyering should be otherwise.
This blog was written by didlaw’s managing director Karen Jackson.
