header-logo header-logo

The costs of going solo

02 December 2011 / Michael Cook
Issue: 7492 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Michael Cook examines the financial implications of litigants in person

By definition you will never act for a litigant in person (LIP); but however much you may wish to ignore them, “Lippies”, as they are affectionately known, are not going to go away. Their rates have been increased, legal aid is to dwindle yet again, so they will proliferate.

Successive governments cannot be accused of offering financial inducements to litigants to do it themselves. As Sir Rupert Jackson observed in Chapter 14 of the final report of his Review of Civil Litigation Costs, the hourly rate allowed to successful litigants in person had not been increased from £9.25 per hour since 1 December 1995. Applying the average earnings index for private sector services, the figure in December 2009 would have risen to £15.32, while annual increases of £1 had resulted in the equivalent figure awarded in employment tribunals being £29. He recommended a prescribed rate of £20 an hour. The 57th Update

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll