When Litigants in Person Go Rogue: The Perils of Self-Representation

In an age where legal fees are prohibitively expensive, more people are choosing to represent themselves in court. Known as Litigants in Person (LiPs), these individuals navigate the complex judicial system without professional legal assistance. While some manage to present competent and well-prepared cases, others go off-piste, ignoring legal advice, dismissing procedural norms, and inadvertently sabotaging their own claims. When LiPs go rogue, the consequences can be severe—not just for them, but for the judicial process itself.

The Temptation to Ignore Advice

One of the most common pitfalls for rogue LiPs is their refusal to follow sound legal guidance. Many receive assistance from McKenzie Friends, pro bono solicitors, or lay representatives, but instead of heeding advice, they treat the courtroom as a personal battlefield. A misdirected sense of justice often trumps strategy, leading them to push arguments that have no legal merit or fixate on grievances that are irrelevant to the case at hand.

“They often believe they see the bigger picture,” says a former tribunal judge, speaking on condition of anonymity. “But what they fail to grasp is that the court operates on rules, not emotions. You can’t win a case on moral outrage alone.”

Misunderstanding the Legal Process

Many rogue LiPs fall into the trap of thinking the courtroom is a free forum for airing grievances. They flood tribunals with excessive correspondence, demand hearings for issues that have already been ruled upon, or attempt to subpoena irrelevant witnesses. Instead of focusing on the core legal issues, they derail proceedings with arguments about fairness, bias, and procedural irregularities—often without understanding how these concepts are applied in law.

A senior barrister who has faced multiple rogue LiPs in litigation explains: “They become their own worst enemy. Instead of presenting a focused, legally sound argument, they bombard the other side with lengthy, emotive emails. Judges see this as vexatious behaviour, which often results in costs orders against them.”

The Risks of Defying the System

Courts have mechanisms in place to protect against abusive litigation, including Civil Restraint Orders (CROs) and Rule 13 cost orders in tribunals, which penalise unreasonable conduct. Rogue LiPs often miscalculate their own position, believing that “truth will prevail”, only to find themselves facing thousands of pounds in legal costs after losing. Their belief that the system is fundamentally flawed can ironically lead them to engage in behaviour that confirms a judge’s perception of them as unreasonable.

A Better Path for Self-Representation

While the court system should remain accessible to all, rogue LiPs serve as a cautionary tale. Successful self-representation requires discipline, strategic thinking, and a willingness to accept sound advice. Courts are not arenas for personal battles; they are governed by laws, precedents, and procedures. Those who ignore this reality risk not only their case but their financial stability and reputation.

The lesson? If you’re going to represent yourself, do it wisely—or risk becoming an example of what not to do.