She claimed it was the “power of one” that did it — and that it saved her more than £600,000 in legal fees. But was Heather Mills’ decision to act for herself a triumph or disaster? And should it pave the way for a surge in DIY litigation?

Lawyers, Mills said as she celebrated her £24.3 million settlement, “couldn’t get anywhere near that figure”. Since she had ditched Mishcon de Reya, or they had ditched her, or both, we shall never know. But it seems unlikely that they would have done worse; and, some argue, would have done better.

Mills ended up with what most lawyers regarded as the right figure (it was widely predicted) — even if a fraction of the £125 million she had claimed. But she lost in every other sense: each claim was systematically demolished by the judge as excessive, ridiculous or without justification and she emerged in his stinging judgment as a greedy fantasist, “less than candid” and “devoid of reality”.

There is a second point about the Mills DIY scenario. She was not entirely acting on her own. Her previous lawyers had done much of the legwork. And she had opposite her the dream divorce team of Nicholas Mostyn, QC, and Fiona Shackleton. They, with the judge, Mr Justice Bennett, will have bent over backwards to ensure all her points were made, that nothing was missed and that she understood the implications at every stage.

Finally, she had David Rosen, a high-street litigation solicitor from Edgware, north west London, who acted as her McKenzie Friend — someone who sits with a litigant in person and metaphorically holds their hand. Usually such “friends” are not lawyers but in this case, hers was. So Mills was not the average litigant in person.

Nonetheless, she will have upped the profile for people contemplating acting for themselves. When Rosen stood up to appeal (unsuccessfully) against Mr Justice Bennett’s judgment being released — that final part of the action Mills handed to him — Rosen told the Court of Appeal judges: “Ms Mills is a litigant in person.” “I think we know that,” Lord Justice Thorpe replied to laughter.

With the high cost of legal fees and scarcity of legal aid, DIY route is increasingly tempting. The Royal Courts of Justice, in The Strand, has its own citizens’ advice bureau to help people going to law on their own. Its services, provided by three staff solicitors and a rota of part-time volunteer lawyers from law firms, are hugely stretched. At present it is running at 60 clients a week — anything from family cases to debt, accident claims or job disputes. In the past year it has advised 7,600 clients.

In turn, the rise of the litigant in person puts a strain on the courts, with judges obliged to bend over backwards to do the job that a lawyer would be doing. Cases may be delayed. The litigant may not incur legal costs but court users as a whole — and taxpayers — carry the burden.

Even so, this fundamental right of access to the courts should not be removed. Stephen Gold, a district judge sitting at Kingston upon Thames, says: “Litigants in person are here to stay. As the legal aid scheme shrinks and legal fees expand, so the number of litigants in person will increase. They are the norm in small claims and, quite apart from these they abound, even in the Court of Appeal — so all levels of the judiciary are used to them and can cope.”

And, he says, although judges may have the added burden of putting questions a lawyer would be putting, and “being faced with unmeritorious points that are taken by the litigant in person but would not be taken by a lawyer”, the litigant in person (LIP) knows the case best. “Sometimes they will be faster than a legal representative and may well be less verbose than a lawyer when summing up the case and so on. So it is swings and roundabouts.”

Cost savings are the obvious advantage — but there are others, he says. In cases other than small claims, the court has the power to order the other side to compensate the LIP for the time spent on the case. “If they can show they have suffered financial loss they may be awarded up to two thirds of what a lawyer would have charged plus their disbursements and the expense of obtaining legal advice about the proceedings. If no loss can be shown they may be able to collect a standard £9.25 an hour.”

But — perhaps unsurprisingly — along with nearly all judges and lawyers, it is not a route he advises unless there is no option. At the very least, LIPs should consult a lawyer on where they stand and what a reasonable settlement would be — or they risk bearing the other side’s legal costs.

In short, it could be disastrous, cautions Andrew Holroyd, president of the Law Society. Key points can be overlooked and the process can be far more frightening than people think. “Litigants in person often come up against their opposite party’s solicitor, which can be intimidating and is hardly an even match, so having your own ‘legal knight’ to represent your cause will help to boost your chances in court.

“The DIY approach could be useful in very straightforward cases, but it is safe at least to get a solicitor to check that everything is covered, otherwise it could result in an unsatisfactory settlement.”

In a divorce case, there is a mass of paperwork, he says. Solicitors will send copies of significant letters, give regular updates on progress and costs — or at least they should. If domestic abuse arises, the solicitor can deal with that as a priority to ensure that a wife and children are safe.

That aside, how would lawyers have helped with Mills? First, in probing Sir Paul’s accounts, which she was unable to do, James Stewart, family partner at Manches, says. “The judgment makes clear that she didn’t have the tools available or the ability to challenge the business and other valuations his accountants put forward.”

By contrast, her own budget claims fell apart on inspection and exposed her to ridicule. “A lawyer would have ensured some sort of documentation was produced to corroborate her assertions.” She may have saved on legal costs — but savings would have been minimal compared with the damage of inflicting a badly presented and unhelpful case to the court.

“Proper representation would have helped her to achieve an award that was not at the very bottom of the discretionary options open to the judge.”

James Freeman, of Speechly Bircham, agrees. A lawyer manages and moderates the client’s expectations and brings an objective eye to the case,” he says. “This is a paradigm example of the dangers of acting in person. Her case was crippled by two factors: advancing wantonly unrealistic figures . . . and a combination of her own pronouncements and probing by Sir Paul’s team shredded her credibility. She did not want for determination or effort — she lacked judgment.”

Finally, the lawyer can be an emotional cipher. Julian Lipson, family partner at Withers, says that the danger for a litigant in person is that “emotionally you are too closely connected to the case”. Divorce, he says, is stressful, worrying and complex and the pressure can impair a litigant’s capacity to view it dispassionately. “Dispensing with a lawyer may save money in the short term but it is almost always a mistake.”

Above all, perhaps, using a lawyer — especially in divorce — can prevent the case coming to court at all. Mills herself says that had she known that the judgment could be published, she would have settled before the court hearing. James Stewart says: “If she’d been in receipt of proper legal representation, I believe her case could have been settled well in advance of a final hearing which proved difficult, acrimonious and expensive.” Most family lawyers — Fiona Shackleton included — are members of Resolution, their specialist body, which encourages a consensual approach to divorce and negotiated settlements, not courtroom battles, he adds.

The public would have been deprived of a colourful spectacle on the steps of the court. But Mills, adds Lipson, would have avoided her dirty laundry being aired in public and her reputation left in tatters.

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO