How far may the authority of a litigation representative be restricted, and does it matter whether that representative is a lawyer?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In a practice file we read the letter of authorisation appointing the representative, to see whether the person appointed is an attorney-at-law and which powers were conferred, and any written clause in that authorisation purporting to limit what the representative may do in the case, since that is the restriction the provision turns on.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading takes the main clause as the general rule: the authority of litigation representation may not be restricted, so where the representative is a lawyer, a clause in the authorisation purporting to limit the powers the lawyer holds in the case does not cut down that authority.
Another reading turns on the exception, which says the rule does not apply to a litigation representative who is not a lawyer; for such a representative the provision only removes the bar on restriction, and leaves open who may impose such a limit, on what authority, and what it may cover.
Your judgment
Where a representative is not an attorney-at-law and the authorisation contains a clause limiting powers, what in the file would show on whose instruction that limit was set?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the provision is amended to change how far a non-lawyer representative's authority may be restricted, or if a court decision settles who may impose such a limit and what it may cover.