Are small claims hearings a no-go area for solicitors? I feel strongly that clients need and appreciate professional help.

They ask for advice about how they stand legally and how to conduct their claim on a DIY basis.

There is no link between the size of the claim and its complexity.

Clients link the cost of professional representation to the value of the claim.The guidance clients want is the same as solicitors provide for family and friends.

They want a list of crucial points, a reminder of what is relevant, a warning about common traps and perhaps a piece of a standard text.

The advice will be business-like and jargon-free and given for a fixed fee.

First time litigants may want to be represented at the hearing, even if they carry out the preparatory work themselves.

Professional litigants, who must grant credit in their course of business, may want a litigation support system.

They require a set of standard forms, an intelligent litigation checklist and access to specialist advice if they hit a problem beyond their experience.

If this desert island advice falls short of the traditional service lawyers usually consider necessary to protect their client's interest, it is an infinite improvement over having no access to legal advice whatsoever.

In my view, a limited litigation service given for a fixed fee meets the needs of a latent market for legal services.Let's look at the importance of the procedure.

In 1996, there were more than 94,000 small claims hearings.

If the number of acti ons tried in the county court is added to those tried in the High Court, small claims hearings account for 80 per cent of the total.

In my experience, litigants in person regularly ask the court to transfer a claim above the automatic reference level into the small claims procedure to avoid open court trial.

Rarely do litigants want to rescind an automatic reference.

They say that they are willing to forego the opportunity to recover their costs in order to avoid the risk of paying their opponent's costs if they lose.

I doubt whether this convention will change when the automatic reference level goes up to £5,000.

The system has the reputation of providing inexpensive, simple and swift justice.

Litigants fear the transaction-based system of costs.

They cannot calculate how much their solicitor will charge, nor their total losses if they lose the action.Read Professor John Baldwin's report about the anxieties litigants feel towards open court trial and the risk of paying more in legal fees to have the dispute resolved than the money at stake in the dispute.

(Lord Chancellor's Department -- Research Series 1/97 -- Monitoring the rise of the small claims limit: litigant's experiences of different forms of adjudication -- Professor John Baldwin.) Professor Baldwin quoted some litigants who said the process seemed life threatening! Read the advice anyway; it contains a wealth of insight no lawyer can ignore.

I have avoided the word "arbitration" in this article.

I hope it will not reappear in the new common civil procedure rules.

For many litigants and not a few lawyers, the word does not imply a law based procedure that is a central part of our civil justice system.

A very useful extract of the law that affects consumer disputes now follows the text of Ord 19 in the Annual Practice.Where the claim exceeds £3,000 (£1,000 if the claim involves personal injuries), either party may apply to refer the action to the small claims procedure; it is not necessary for the other to consent.

District judges vary in their willingness to refer larger claims to small claims procedure.

There is a fundamental distinction between the two forms of reference.

The no costs rule applies only to an action automatically referred by rule.

The rule does not apply to an action voluntarily referred by order.

Small claims procedure is well adapted for some forms of larger claim, where a chambers hearing is convenient, for example, taking accounts and in building disputes.

It is good practice to ask the district judge to state in the order whether or not the no costs rule should apply.

Many litigants prefer to forfeit the opportunity of recovering their costs if they succeed, to escape from the risk of paying their opponent's costs if they lose.

Afzal v Ford Motor Co Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 720 and Joyce v Liverpool City Council [1995] 3 All ER 110 confirmed that unliquidated personal injury and housing disrepair claims are within the procedure.

Those appeals established that the district judge has the same wide powers to grant equitable relief at a small claim hearing as can be exercised in open court.

The remedies include the power to grant all injunctions except for an Anton Pillar or Mareva order.Rule 6(4) discourages pre-arbitration-hearings but practice varies.

Some district judges will direct a pre-arbitration-hearing where the defence appears defective.

Order 17, r 8 gives the district judge at a pre-trial-review power to enter judgment against a defendant who has delivered a defence but does not appear.

If you think this was the reason why the pre-arb itration-hearing was listed, write to the court, ask the district judge to treat your letter as an appearance.

Request final judgment if the defendant fails to appear; alternatively, ask for a date of hearing.

Another reason for a pre-arbitration-hearing is to enable the district judge to give particular directions to avoid adjourning the final hearing.

It may appear that a litigant in person does not realise the need to obtain expert evidence.

In this case, write to the district judge and give a summary of the issues and suggest directions relating to the exchange of evidence.The court listing-manager may be able to tell you of the district judge's practice if the action is not in your local court.

The Court Service efficiency target requires the final hearing to be within six weeks of the listing direction.

When you file the defence, give the court any unavailable dates.

The court will usually relist the first hearing date if the parties write immediately the notice of hearing is received.

The court is unlikely to relist the hearing if one party writes without the consent of the other.

Prepare for a small claim hearing like any other trial but in a simplified form.

You will help your case if you help the judge.

Prepare a bundle of documents.

Include any expert's report and witnesses' statements.

The district judge will particularly appreciate witness statements; they reduce the notes of evidence.

In small actions, it is often easier if the parties produce separate documents bundles.

If there is a point of law, prepare a short written submission.

Attach a copy of any authority.

Give to the client who is to represent him or herself, a letter that tells them what to say at the hearing.

Both your client and the district judge will value this.

Before the hearing, calculate any interest and prepare a list of the expenses the court can award.

These should include court fees, the cost of an expert's report, the witnesses, loss of earnings and travel expenses.

Remember the parties are witnesses.

Some district judges may allow the cost of film and photocopying.

If your client has to attend a court in another town, ask the court for a location map.

In a small claim it is very unlikely the district judge will refuse to allow a registered company's director or employee to represent it, or refuse to allow an unrepresented party's friend to attend a hearing to give assistance short of representation or merely moral support.Rule 7(4) governs the conduct of the hearing.

The district judge may adopt any method of procedure that is fair.

Each party must have an equal opportunity to present their case and to ask questions of their opponent.

Where both parties are represented, some judges allow representatives to conduct the hearing.

Other judges take an interventionist role and question the witnesses and leave the representative a minor part.

The district judge must assist, though not advise, an unassisted party and make good any inadequacy in representation.

The witnesses may be questioned in any order.

If you are in any doubt about the procedure, ask the district judge at the outset, how the hearing will be conducted.

Unless the district judge orders otherwise, evidence is usually taken unsworn.

Any statements by witnesses who are not present will be read.

It is usually preferable for a witness to attend the hearing.

If that is not possible, a statement is better than nothing.

Rule 7 (3) provides that the strict rules of evidence do not apply.

This distinction is less important since the Civil Evidence Act 1995 changed the rule governing hearsay evidence from admissibility to weight.

The statement should always be composed in the witness's own words.

The statement's weight will depend on its content and whether the witness would have been tested by cross-examination had they attended the hearing.

The court is required to give its reasons for the decision by r 7(8).

Tell your client to take a note, small claims decisions are not mechanically recorded.

In a straightforward action, such as a debt-collecting claim, it may be uneconomic for the plaintiff to attend court if the court is distant or it is likely that the defendant will not appear.

Write to the district judge to ask that the letter be treated as the plaintiff's appearance.

Enclose a copy of any statement and the relevant documents.

Set out the terms of the judgment sought.

Confirm that a copy has been sent to the defendant.

You may ask the district judge to conduct the claim entirely from written evidence and submissions.

This procedure works best where the facts are agreed and the dispute involves the interpretation of a document.

The no costs rule? Order 19 r 4 restricts the successful litigant from recovering from the unsuccessful opponent any costs other than:(i) the costs stated on the summons or which would have been stated on the summons if the claim had been for a liquidated sum;(ii) where the proceedings include an application for an injunction or for an order for specific performance or similar relief, an additional sum up to £260 to cover the costs of legal advice and assistance to prepare the case;(iii) further costs where there has been unreasonable conduct on the part of the opposite party;(iv) the costs of enforcing the award.

In addition, the successful party can recover from the unsuccessful party expenses for any witness of fact whom is was reasonable to call to give evidence.

The maximum allowance for each witness is £50 for loss of earnings and reasonable travelling expenses.

"Earnings" mean, earnings net of statutory deductions.

Don't forget the parties themselves are witnesses.

£200 plus travelling expenses is the maximum recoverable for an expert witness.

The £200 includes the preparation of the report and any attendance at court.

There is no discretion to exceed these limits.

When a registered company is the successful party, district judges vary in their attitude to awarding the company the loss of earnings of an employee or director who attended as a witness.

There is no advantage for the defendant to pay money into court in a small claim.

Whether the plaintiff recovers more or less than the sum offered, r 4 restricts the recoverable costs to the costs on the summons.

If the defendant made a written offer to settle the claim before the summons is issued, and the award is less than the offer, the district judge may disallow the unnecessary cost of issue of the proceedings -- Burrows v Vauxhall Motors (1997) 147 NLJ 1723, CA.