If you are a litigant in person (or thinking of becoming one), then this site was made for you. This site was established to encourage and enable litigants in person to help each other with experience-based information, insights and ideas.
A post will be added for each new area of interest – to which anyone can comment. You can register your strongest area of interest right now by answering the poll below. The poll results WILL influence which content gets more fully developed first.
Remember to SUBSCRIBE to the site, so that updates may come to you in a timely (and hopefully serendipitous) manner.
Legal and other relevant professionals are also invited to participate in the discussions. If you would like to feature your services on this site, then please contact litigantsinperson@collaboration.co.uk to do so.
This site is directly related to Help for Litigants In Person
Some key messages underlying our approach to our work can be found HERE
One thing we are doing on Help4LiPs is interviewing Litigants in Person to find out what they have learned. This is not an informal chat, but instead is a structured learning interview. It works by getting the LiP to think about what has worked for them that they recommend others do in future and conversely what, with the value of hindsight, hasn’t worked and that they would do differently if they could rewind the clock.
Whether from successes or failures along the way, the objective of the interview is to help the LiP create future-oriented advice that is SAR (specific, actionable recommendations) in format. This is to avoid motherhood statements such as “communicate well” or “spend your money wisely” which, while they may be true, aren’t a lot of help.
This site will contain advice from LiPs who share their experience and learning in this way.
If there are any LiPs out there who have learning to share then do let us know, interviews can be done by phone as well as face to face.
Thank you, Paul
This is a link to a recent article published by the Accountancy media about this site:
http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/topic/cpd/self-help-site-litigants-person/516783
If you are a new Litigant in Person, one way to help structure your approach is to think about which knowledge you need. You can do this by making a simple list of “How To’s” as you begin, ie How To do X and How To do Y.
For example, you might write:
The Knowledge I need in my case is:
1/. How To Prepare a Bundle;
2/. How To Prepare for a Hearing;
3/. How To Handle the Emotional side of Being a LiP
4/. Etc…
It may be that you have some of this “shopping list” of knowledge areas already, and that’s ok. The point is that you are making a methodical list of the knowledge you need to help you make progress.
For knowledge areas that you don’t have, this is where you can approach this community and ask. For example, if you don’t have knowledge on how to prepare for a hearing, you can ask the question here and find who can help you.
If lots of people start to ask for the same knowledge then we can start to see patterns and be able to provide better and more focused help to people generally in the LiP community.
Quite a few commercial organisations are beginning to manage projects in this way. They get clear on their objectives and then work out what knowldge they need to succeed and then work out how they are going to get it, item by item.
If anyone tries this idea I’d be very interested to hear how you get on, thank you.
Paul
Recently I described this site as encouraging more Francis Wests, less Eberts.
Francis contacted us and was directed to a trusted professional. He is now still living in his home, which he was on the verge of losing, Francis is building a business, employing people and paying taxes!
He has also promised to help us update this part of our site, and make it more user friendly.
Ebert has become so frustrated with civil law that he has switched to alleged criminal activity. He is in front of his local Magistrates, for a second time, for alleged Criminal damage to his former home, and harrassment of the current occupants. As I understand it, he is doing this in order to gain sight of documents which will help him in his civil case. This method has taken vast amounts of Ebert’s time, vast amounts of civil Court time and is now taking up Police and Criminal Court time.
We wish, by networking and sharing knowledge on this site to assist LiPs that use this site, to replicate Francis rather than Ebert.
One way for a Litigant in Person to identify their learning after a hearing, whether it has gone well or not so well, is to take yourself through a quick (typically 10 – 20 minutes) and simple “After Action Review” (AAR) process.
Invented by the US Army some 40 years ago, the AAR is now common practice in many organisations, both military and civilian, where the need is to capture learning from an operation or intervention in a structured and disciplined way, so that it may be re-applied the next time round.
The AAR consists of 4 questions:
1/. What Was Supposed to Happen? (ie, what did I / we intend to happen or achieve from the hearing?)
2/. What Actually Happened? (ie, what happened in reality, what the US Army calls Ground Truth – this isn’t about opinions but facts about what occurred during the hearing).
3/. Why Was There a Difference (Good or Bad)? (ie, why was there a difference between what was supposed to happen and what actually happened in the hearing? It’s worth spending a few minutes thinking / talking about this question as it gets to the underlying learning about WHY what happened, happened).
4/. What Have I / We Learned for Next Time? (the learning needs to be as specific and actionable as possible, avoiding vague / motherhood statements). Be careful to identify any actions you need to do and make sure they are followed through.
These 4 questions are very simple, and yet very powerful. Experience in companies and projects has shown that individuals and teams that routinely apply the AAR after key events / interventions / operations outperform those that don’t. This is because they learn faster and more effectively – and I believe that successful LiPs is about fast learning if you are to manage the challenges of those with much more experience.
It also helps to manage and increase emotional intelligence, the structure helps to focus emotion in a powerful way and channel it into effective learning. It helps to make unconscious learning conscious, it’s amazed me over the years what teams have come out with when they had taken the time to do this, and revealed how much learning as hidden becasue they hadn’t taken the time to reflect and identify learning in this structured and methodical way.
Best to all,
Paul
The Ministry of Justice has very recently produced a “Literature Review” on Litigants in Person (LiPs).
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/litigants-in-person-literature-review.pdf
We applaud the action, long overdue, by the MoJ.
We invite comments on this Research Summary from seasoned LiPs, and other interested parties.
This site takes advice and has relationships with some of the brightest legal minds.
Discussing the “News of the World” closure, it was suggested that by closing the newspaper a great number of potentially damaging e-mails and other documents could be legally shredded.
Not being a lawyer, I have no idea if this is correct. As a former businessman it is an explanation of the loss of a major asset, the “News of the World” brand.
Crowd sourcing, used wisely, is very powerful – I have seen it applied in various organisations where staff ask communities of people with similar challenges and issues for advice, and offer help. These are often called “Communities of Practice”, and an online place like this to meet and ask questions and offer advice is an important part of how Communities of Practice work.
You still need to think about the advice that’s offered, and context is vital when transferring advice from one experience to another, but tapping such Communities and finding help from others from their experience is increasingly being seen as an important part of how organisations prosper nowadays. This forum is just the same…
Such Communities need people to participate, however. Ask a question, offer some advice, make a comment – don’t always leave it to someone else to keep the forum alive…
Why not make a calendar appointment to come into this forum 2 or 3 times a week to see if there is anything of interest and / or that you can contribute to?
Best to all,
Paul
I’m not a LIP, in fact I had never been in a courtroom before last Friday. However, I attended a hearing that day to observe and learn from a LIP as they attended a session facing a judge.
For me, the most important thing that came out is the value of emotional intelligence. The session was, on the face of it, a techincal one – but it struck me that the most important issue was that of emotions and how well they are managed. Keeping calm, communicating well, respecting and reading the judge.
This is tricky when under pressure no doubt…
What do others think? What can be done in planning for hearings, and during the hearings too, to help in this area?
Paul
LIPs most often lack the funds to engage top talent among, for example, forensic accountants who are prepared to undertake work essential to building good evidence.
This site has been the conduit for me to engage with a highly qualified accountancy firm which is happy to build with me the legal and accountancy analysis I need to take my case forward.
AND they will do much of the work on a conditional fee agreement with minimal “up front” payment.
Of course, it helps if they can see that you have a sound case with prospect of a good return.
Brad and I share a “vision” for this site:
This “site” is divided into two parts;
The first part is where LiP’s can learn just a little of the task they are taking on. Hopefully LiP’s will be able to access in this one place, information that will help them understand what the judicial / legal system expects of them and what their basic options are.
The second part, here, is the discussion forum. Many “old hand” LiP’s when we meet say “if only I knew when I started what I know now, I would have done things very differently!!” This forum is to enable us to exchange experiences and contacts and learn from each other.
Hopefully this will make LiP’s become more experienced – without suffering the pain many of us have suffered and very many are still suffering.
Litigants in Person is a primary right in UK judicial law that intends to help those that cannot afford the legal costs of fighting or bringing a case to court.
This site brings us the understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of doing it. Often our legal representatives do not understand or do not want to understand how it works.
So you guys keep up your work to bring this basic right to the masses. Particularly to those that have lost all their wealth.
This site is about helping LiPs to better understand what the legal process requires of them.
There are a multitude of stories of how the legal process treats LiP’s very badly.
Some of these stories happen because LiP’s fail to comprehend the legal process, and hopefully this site may be able to assist a better comprehension.
Some of these stories happen because the LiP’s opponent is a professional. Some professionals comprehend how to commit a “professional foul”, and how to get away with it.
A professional understands that a Court can only decide on the clear evidence that is presented to the Court.
It is our ambition for this site that it may assist LiP’s in doing so.
Read Francis West http://litigantsinperson.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/guarantee-litigation/#comment-16
and be inspired!
I was!!!!
Having listened to victim stories ever since 1998, I think that Volume 1 and 2 of The Forensics of Legal Fraud are really important demonstrations that you are NOT alone:
Mr Ebert’s bankruptcy in Vol 1 is as bad as Paulette Cooper’s in Vol 2 in terms of falsifying documents and victims ending up as vexatious litigants instead of getting justice and a fair trial, let alone compensation.
And even more stories are on Victims Unite!
To help victims become effective Litigants in Person is VITALLY important!!!
Thank you for your support, Sabine
One of the patterns that interests me is that in both Paulette Cooper’s and in Mr Ebert’s cases, they were / are very entrepreneurial in their approach to life.
Entrepreneurs seem to develop highly successful commercial track records when applying a persistent “try and try again” approach until something works. The free market economy responds well to this approach.
The Courts, however, do NOT respond well to this approach. The cultivated set of behaviours in a Court Room are very different from those in a free market economy.
People embarking on the journey of representing themselves in Court therefore, will probably benefit from an early heads-up regarding established protocols.
Great Idea! Long overdue.
Until2003 I was a wealthy, successfull owner of 10 steel and engineering Companies. We made things!
I was brought down by a “Big Four” insolvency firm who behaved corruptly and, in 2009, to hide their corruption from the Courts, bankrupted me.
Had “Help4LiPs” been around in those days I would not have wasted big bucks on Law firms who, apart from being ineffective, mostly do not “take on” their fellow “professionals” .
Forget complaining to so-called Regulators. They are, basically, a protection system for their members.
With a brain, a computer, the support of a site like this and some fellow sufferers you will achieve a good outcome- assuming of course, that there is good evidence
If my story interests you, here it is in brief: http://bit.ly/ADavidFabbFilm
Thank you for your comments, David
Your experience-based comment about Regulators is one that I have heard before. It has caused me to ask questions of professionals that I work with from time to time.
I was once told by a chartered accountant that when he was ‘getting creative’ on behalf of his employer, he would NEVER get so creative that he would risk getting disciplined by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. His explanation regarding this was pretty simple.
He said that while there are many organisations who could employ his accounting services, there was only the one licensing body. So his priority on keeping his license to practice was always above the specific work he was doing for his employer.
So now I am thinking about how this might ‘translate’ (or not) within the context of working for one of the “Big Four” insolvency firms…
I had not heard of “Litigants in Person” and this website starts to explain how someone on a limited budget can fight the big boys who throw money and people on a case that scares a lot of us away from taking action that is fair and reasonable.Keep up the education guys.
Thanks Brian
“Crowd Sourcing” experience-based insights and ideas has a proven track record in some other industries.
We are hoping that this discussion forum and its related informational website at http://bit.ly/help4lips will move us towards something along these lines for people needing to represent themselves.
As this site’s moderator of comments, I have turned away numerous posts over time containing assertions similar to what you will have read in this one by Julie. I turned them away not to stop their expression but to ask for links to evidence before posting their comments.
It seemed to me paramount that a third party reader to this blog be given access to the evidence of alleged perjuries etal referenced in the comments, so as not to simply promote the same or similar behaviours on line in this blog that some Litigants in Person feel they have borne the brunt of from those they are in dispute with.
Sadly, this has until now resulted in very interesting and insight-full experiences of LiPs not being shared on this blog. This is most unfortunate, as part of our intention is to enable those who are in a position to improve that essential experience of equal access to justice, to benefit from the insights of people like Julie who are attempting to represent themselves.
Something about Julie’s writing style and her expression of her personal experiences and her interpretations of those experiences has moved me to press the “approved” button this time – even without asking for links to evidence for what she has said.
I’ve come to understand that whether our perception of reality is right or wrong, our reaction to that perception has very real consequences. Julie has, in her writing, shared some of what she has experienced and how she has interpreted it. I note in her reaction to her interpretation that she still believes the legal system has some integrity within it.
It’s my hope that her comments will be dissected and absorbed by those wishing to apply their particular positions of influence on improving the general experience of litigants in person.