The article by District Judge Richard Chapman was surely four days too late for the April Fool joke that I assume it was.

Most ‘competent’ lawyers should charge around £200 for the efficiently used hour that he thinks will be sufficient to identify and explain the procedures, and to identify the relevant documents and evidence. Assuming that an hour was actually adequate to perform this miracle, the cost is likely to be beyond many self-represented litigants (SRLs).

Accordingly, I assume that the cost will be substantially subsidised by the solicitors who provide the service, as usual.

If this was not enough, he then goes on to suggest that his learned colleagues on the bench will not hold a lawyer liable for a negligence claim, because Padden v Bevan Ashford will not apply. This neatly ignores the fact that the efficiently used hour will need to be carefully documented to ensure that the SRL has not misunderstood the advice, or does not misrepresent it when things go wrong and a judge starts to lay into a hapless firm’s professional indemnity policy with a view to helping the ‘little man’.

So there will probably be another hour of work to protect against the risks. Who is going to pay for this?

If the procedure cannot be understood by SRLs, then either the procedure should be changed, or sufficient judges will have to be appointed and trained to deal with the consequences of the lack of professional representation. It is neither fair nor reasonable to expect the legal profession to continue to pick up the pieces.

Alan England, Kedington, Suffolk