Written by When I wrote the article entitled “The Chimp, The Computer, and The LiP,” I drew heavily on The Chimp Paradox, one of my favourite books for understanding how our emotions and logic collide under pressure. The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene serves a similar purpose for me—especially when litigation feels like it’s spinning out of control, as it often does for Litigants in Person (LiPs). The sheer force of legal procedures, tight deadlines, and complex opposing counsel can leave LiPs feeling sidelined. This is where strategic reflection becomes invaluable. Greene’s classic not only offers a blueprint for navigating power dynamics but also provides a mental reset when the legal arena threatens to overwhelm. Below, we explore five of his most relevant “laws,” adapted with the realities—and ethical constraints—of self-representation in mind.
1. Always Say Less Than Necessary—But Remain Transparent to the Court
Precise and concise arguments carry weight. Verbose submissions often dilute your strongest points and can irritate judges. Less can indeed be more when it comes to legal drafting. Nonetheless, LiPs must avoid under-disclosure that breaches procedural or ethical rules:
- Conciseness vs. Under-Disclosure Brevity in submissions is different from concealing crucial facts or evidence. Ensure your filings meet all disclosure obligations, and don’t omit material facts that the court requires. A judge punishes blatant omissions far more harshly than a rambling submission.
- Strategic Communication Keep correspondence with the opposition brief and focused—don’t hand them extraneous details they can twist. Yet, always confirm you’re complying with procedural rules: if the rules mandate disclosure, you must provide it.
Bottom Line: Say enough to satisfy your legal duties and highlight your strengths. Strip out unnecessary fluff, but never cross into unethical concealment.
2. Conceal Your Intentions—Without Violating Procedural Fairness
Opposing solicitors often exploit a LiP’s transparency or emotional reactions. They thrive on knowing your full strategy. It is wise to protect critical arguments until the right moment, forcing the opposition to respond blindly. But:
- Avoid ‘Trial by Ambush’ Courts have become increasingly alert to tactics that withhold or spring evidence or arguments at the last minute. If you deliberately sandbag vital material until the hearing, you risk judicial ire. Tactful timing is an art—follow the rules for service and disclosure while retaining an element of unpredictability in your broader strategy.
- Emotion vs. Strategic Restraint An intemperate email or over-detailed witness statement can backfire, handing the opponent lines of attack. Keep your case planning close to your chest, yet ensure your official submissions to the court are complete and comply with directions.
Bottom Line: Conceal only what you’re not legally required to disclose at that stage. Preserve the element of surprise ethically and within procedural limits.
3. Win Through Actions, Not Argument—But Show Solid Legal Merits
Empty complaints about unfairness do little in the eyes of the court. A LiP who files tangible applications, enforces rules, and presents evidence-based submissions stands a better chance of prevailing. Greene’s principle to “win through actions” is crucial in litigation. Still:
- Substantive Law Matters You can’t compensate for a weak legal claim with procedural maneuvers alone. Ensure you have a legitimate cause of action, supported by legal precedents or statutes. Tactics may bolster a strong argument, but they won’t salvage a claim lacking legal merit.
- Consolidate Small Victories Enforcing deadlines or revealing procedural errors by the other side builds your credibility over time. Each procedural success proves you’re not a pushover. But choose battles wisely—frivolous applications can annoy the judge if they serve no real purpose.
Bottom Line: Let procedural mastery and a robust legal foundation work together. Small, tactical wins build momentum, but they must serve a valid underlying case.
4. Make Your Opponent Play by Their Own Rules—Selectively Enforce, Don’t Overdo It
Opposing counsel can be overconfident, assuming LiPs are clueless about procedural nuances. Exploit that. If they miss a deadline or flout a rule, call them out—in a formal, timely manner. Force them to confront their own standards of practice. However:
- Don’t Become Vexatious The temptation to pounce on every minor misstep is real. Yet too many procedural skirmishes can frustrate the judge and distract from the core issues. Focus on breaches that significantly impact your ability to present your case.
- Match Their Procedural Savvy Research court rules meticulously. Opponents often try informal shortcuts—especially if they think you won’t notice. If it affects your rights, don’t concede. But if it’s inconsequential, consider whether pressing the point helps or harms your credibility.
Bottom Line: Use procedural rules as a shield, not a sword. Keeping the opposition honest strengthens your case, provided you don’t create unnecessary conflict.
5. Know Who You’re Dealing With—Judges, Opponents, and the Human Factor
Every judge has a unique style: some prize rigid procedural adherence; others prefer pragmatic solutions. Researching prior decisions or gleaning insights from court listings can help shape how you present your case. The same applies to opposing counsel:
- Tailor Your Approach to Judicial Preferences
- Assess Your Opponent
Bottom Line: Litigation is never purely mechanical. The personalities of your judge and opponent matter. Adapt to their tendencies, and your strategy gains traction.
Conclusion: Strategy Needs Substance
A Litigant in Person who embraces these five principles—concise communication, careful disclosure, proactive action, procedural enforcement, and audience awareness—will be better equipped to navigate the adversarial system. Yet remember: no amount of strategic flair can rescue a legally baseless claim, and courts punish those who distort or conceal important information.
Litigation is a blend of power dynamics and legal rigor. By combining shrewd tactics with a strong substantive footing, LiPs can level a playing field traditionally stacked against them. Act decisively, maintain ethical standards, and show the court your competence—this is how you seize the upper hand.
References
- Greene, R. (1998) The 48 Laws of Power. New York: Viking Press.
- Peters, S. (2012) The Chimp Paradox: The Mind Management Programme for Confidence, Success and Happiness. London: Vermilion.
Disclaimer
This article provides strategic insights intended for informational purposes only. Nothing here constitutes legal advice or creates a solicitor-client relationship. Every case turns on its particular facts, and procedural rules may vary between jurisdictions. If you require legal guidance, you should seek independent professional counsel licensed to practise in your jurisdiction.