Written by In an environment where the promise of justice is increasingly elusive, a far more sinister trend has emerged—not from misguided litigants in person (LiPs) but from the legal teams representing powerful respondents. Public institutions such as the NHS have long outsourced their defence to panels of law firms whose singular objective is to dismantle even the most creditable grievances. Rather than addressing serious detriments with fairness and rigour, these specialist legal teams deploy a barrage of procedural tactics to extinguish claims before they can be properly heard, leaving many LiPs not only without redress but emotionally and financially broken.
A Systematic Rot Within Respondent Legal Panels
While the majority of lawyers uphold high ethical standards, there exists a deeply entrenched faction within respondent legal teams that operates with ruthless efficiency. These firms have perfected a playbook of aggressive tactics designed solely to protect their clients at the expense of genuine justice. Their strategy is clear: portray self‐represented claimants as vexatious and unreasonable, and exploit every procedural loophole to have claims struck out. This systematic approach is reflected in the startling statistic that only about 4% of LiP claims succeed in employment tribunals.
A former tribunal judge, speaking on condition of anonymity, observed:
These legal teams are not in the business of advancing justice—they are in the business of protecting their clients by any means necessary. They exploit every procedural loophole, ensuring that even the most credible claims are smothered before they have a chance to be heard.
The Role of Public Sector Institutions
Compounding the injustice, public bodies like the NHS are complicit in perpetuating this rot by engaging panels of law firms that specialise in striking out cases. In a bid to avoid accountability and shield themselves from liability, these institutions effectively outsource their defence to legal teams whose expertise lies in dismantling challenges rather than resolving them fairly. The consequence is a system where LiPs—often driven by genuine need and creditable grievances—are systematically left to bear the cost, both financially and personally.
Samantha Bradley, a human rights lawyer, summarised the situation succinctly:
It’s alarming how certain lawyers deliberately seek injunctions to prevent claimants from pursuing legitimate actions, effectively stifling the path to justice without any justifiable reason. Such tactics are designed to shut down challenges rather than resolve them.
Legal Counselling as an Instrument of Suppression
It is vital to clarify that these tactics do not stem from misguided advice to LiPs. Instead, they arise from the calculated manoeuvring by respondent legal counsel. Rather than fostering a fair and measured resolution, these teams create an environment of hostility and procedural obstruction. Their aggressive strategies serve not to engage with the merits of a case, but to strip claimants of their credibility and exhaust their resources.
Andy Jenkinson, commenting on the broader systemic failings, remarked:
The system is stacked against you and rigged. Organisations know this and regulators ‘select’ who to hold accountable and who they don’t. The entire foundation is built on sand.
This observation underscores not only the fragility of the system but also the ease with which it can be manipulated to serve entrenched interests.
The Human Cost: The Toll on Litigants in Person
For LiPs, the human cost is devastating. Many enter the tribunal process with legitimate claims born of significant personal and professional detriment, only to be caught in a web of legal manoeuvring that leaves them isolated and disillusioned. Their plight is not a result of poor self-representation; rather, it is a direct consequence of a system engineered to protect powerful institutions at the expense of individual rights.
Linda Jane McLean, drawing from her personal experience with whistleblowing in the NHS, recounts a familiar nightmare:
I only wished to improve patient care and PREVENT PATIENT HARM. That takes a culture shift, not the removal of one person. I was naive. But a perfect system it is not. People must WANT to change.
Her account highlights a system where even the basic process of documenting and reporting misconduct is hamstrung by systemic barriers.
Voices from the Front Line
Georgina Halford-Hall, CEO of WhistleblowersUK, offers a damning perspective on the broader implications:
Whistleblowers are often first-time users of the tribunal, with bringing a claim in an employment tribunal frequently marking their first foray into litigation. They are, metaphorically speaking, lambs to the slaughter—a cash cow for unethical lawyers, many of whom are insufficiently versed in the law and lack experience with this complex piece of legislation, which does little to promote justice. While I may seem excessively critical of lawyers, believe me, it is with good cause. In recent weeks, I have seen multiple six-figure bills or estimates from claimant lawyers, which effectively exclude the majority of those who have done the right thing. The Office of the Whistleblower cannot come soon enough, as it will level the playing field and make justice accessible for everyone.
These insights paint a picture of a system where the vulnerable are systematically exploited, and the promise of justice is subverted by a legal apparatus that too often serves only the powerful.
A Call for Fundamental Reform
The deliberate, systematic dismantling of credible LiP claims by respondent legal counsel represents a profound betrayal of the principles of fairness and justice. Public bodies such as the NHS must be held to account for the law firms they engage, and robust oversight measures need to be introduced to stem the tide of aggressive legal suppression. Reform must ensure that every claim is evaluated on its merits rather than being extinguished by a rigged system of procedural tactics.
Linda’s experience, coupled with the critical voices of professionals like Samantha Bradley and Georgina Halford-Hall, demonstrates the urgent need for a culture shift. Justice must not be the preserve of those with deep pockets or insider access to ruthless legal teams. Instead, it should be accessible to all, irrespective of status or resources.
Conclusion
The systematic weaponisation of the legal process by respondent legal counsel is a stark betrayal of the principles of fairness and justice. By employing aggressive tactics to silence legitimate claims, these law firms leave many with not only unaddressed grievances but also a shattered sense of hope. In an era when access to justice should be a fundamental right, decisive action is needed to eradicate this systemic rot. Only by rebalancing the scales can we ensure that every claim is judged on its merits, rather than extinguished by a system rigged in favour of the powerful.