A blueprint for a simpler, fairer justice system

11 November 2011 by

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has just released a major new report: Access to Justice for Litigants in Person (or self-represented litigants). The report attacks head-on the prospect of thousands more people having to represent themselves in court once civl legal aid is mostly taken away.

The 94-page report, written by a group including a QC and a High Court judge, is a major and ambitious attempt to make the justice system fairer and simpler for people who go to court without a lawyer. A huge amount of research and thought has gone into it, building on the process begun by Lord Woolf in 1997 with the Civil Procedure Act. The CJC was itself a creation of the 1997 Act, its function being to figure out how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair and efficient.

It is not possible to summarise everything in the report, but I will highlight a few parts which jumped out at me. For a full executive summary, see page 8.

The problem

First, the problem. It is generally accepted that the huge impending reduction in civil legal aid will lead to many more litigants in person, which the report rebrands as “self-represented litigants”, and there is a real risk that this increase will clog up the courts. The report states, in clear terms:

The forthcoming reductions and changes in legal aid will have the most serious consequences. This is not simply because of their scale, it is also by reason of their design and incidence. Among other things they will have a disproportionately adverse effect on the most vulnerable in our society.

Litigants will enter the courts, probably bleary eyed from trying in vain to locate the relevant law and procedure on the internet, to find

a system of real quality, but one designed for lawyers, and which as a consequence was and is far too complex and obscure for those representing themselves. It is hard to overstate just how difficult it can be – for the person, for the court, and for other parties – when someone self- represents.

The result is

a legal system that the world admires and which is the forum of choice for much international litigation. But it is not a legal system designed with self-represented litigants in mind.

No easy answer

On important point, possibly the most important, to take from the report is that there is no easy answer to this problem, and given the nature of our fiercely adversarial justice system, possibly none at all. Any proposals therefore amount to ointment rather than a cure. One of the more radical statements made by the CJC is that

The proposed reductions are a matter of regret. This is because, if the focus is on the individual citizen (and not the lawyer), their legal rights can be as important as their health, deserving of the same respect, and meriting equivalent support.

So the withdrawal of civil legal aid will probably lead to a contraction of justice in any event. However, it does provide a useful catalyst for reforming a system which needs reform anyway. Therefore,

Everything must be done to simplify and demystify the law and the system, including its language. This includes Court forms, procedures and hearings.

Bleak picture

The report paints a bleak picture of our confusing and intimidating legal system, but there is a small exception, the small claims and fast track procedures launched by the Civil Procedure Act in 1997:

In one area of the civil courts the experience of self-represented litigants seems generally to have been positive, although there remains room for improvement and further research. Small claims hearings are designed for self-represented litigants. The nature of the hearings is usually less adversarial and more inquisitorial or interventionist than in higher courts.

If more hearings can take the simplified form, then this will make the justice system slightly friendlier to self-represented litigants. But this will involve an expanded, central role for judges, who are already:

at the apex of the civil justice system.

They hold the key to case management and need to be given the support – in training and administration – that they require. Mediation also gets a mention, but not in any great detail.

Traffic jam on the information superhighway

Outside of court, the growth of the web and social media (the latter sadly ignored by the CJC) presents an obvious opportunity. To that end, the CJC offer a number of suggestions, mainly focussing on the fact that there is no single website where people can go to find information about the court system and law.

At the moment, information is split between the Directgov website (which I find to be sometimes bewildering, sometimes useful), the court services and the Ministry of Justice. The committee also point out something I have lamented in the past, that

Even the Government’s legislationwebsite is not up to date.

As I have said before, no government department should be permitted to rely on a law in court unless it is accessible online. There is a huge amount to do on internet law; case summaries, press releases, up-to-date legislation. The report highlights a couple of interesting projects, and concludes that it is

beyond question that the power of the web has not yet been fully exploited to help meet the needs of those with problems that could be resolved through access to justice

But any solution will cost a lot to build and even more to maintain. And in any case, technology can only go so far:

While technology and improved written materials are essential, they are not alone sufficient to achieve the support required. People are the most important resource for all self-represented litigants, but especially the most vulnerable.

Lawyers still needed

This is the crux of the problem; as alluring as it is to think that an average member of the public could litigate their own case with a few well written internet resources and a friendly judge, there is no real substitute, particularly in our adversarial system, for a lawyer representing them in court. A member of the public is no more likely to self-represent effectively in complexly litigation than they are to perform surgery on themselves. To that end, the CJC make recommendations on making the pro-bono system – within which lawyers act for free – better organised and coordinated.

Realistically, there will be nowhere near enough pro-bono lawyers to go around. To fill the gap, the CJC highlights the importance of Public legal education (or PLE) as

the true starting point for helping the public and thereby those who could become self-represented litigants. The regulatory objective of increasing public understanding of the citizen’s legal rights and duties is important.

However good it is, PLE is not going to replace lawyers, but it may limit the need for them in certain limited scenarios. One of the report’s recommendations is that a series of “nut-shell”-type guides are produced for various areas of law. Happily, the CJC highlights the excellent work of fellow barrister-blogger Lucy Reed and her book, Family Courts without a Lawyer, as an example of such a project.

As I have pointed out before, solicitors now have a responsibility under their code of practice to help out with PLE:

The regulatory objectives set by the Legal Services Act 2007 expressly include increasing public understanding of the citizen’s legal rights and obligations. This regulatory objective, alongside the related objectives of promoting the public interest and promoting the interest of consumers, is now more important than ever in light of the proposed reductions and changes to legal aid.

What this means in practice is anyone’s guess, but it is the responsibility of the profession’s regulators and standards bodies to encourage lawyers and would-be-lawyers, to think about this laudable aim seriously.

A big mess

The coming years and the expected avalanche of litigants in person will probably change the face of the justice system.This is therefore a timely report, and one which was needed in any event.

As you can probably tell, there is a huge amount there, and much to be discussed in the coming months and years. But my impression is that the problem is almost too big to approach in an environment where the justice system is being starved of funding.

As such, the CJC is right to focus on relatively cheap measures with potentially significant effects; however expensive a new web system is, it will cost a fraction of the hundreds of millions being saved (in theory, at least) following the cuts to legal aid. Equally, “nut-shell” type guides, if they are well written and updated regularly (it has to be once or twice per year for them to be useful), will be helpful.

More fundamentally, an enlightened view is needed from the Ministry of Justice; it must be right that making the justice system simpler will also make it quicker, and this will generate other savings. It will also make it fairer for those who cannot afford lawyers, and even through the fog of the financial crisis, this should be the basic aim of any reforms.

There are plenty of suggestions in the report as to how the legal profession can help out. Given the scale of the problems, there is only so much the profession – including judges – will be able to accomplish.

The Law Society and Bar Standards Board have taken a strong stance on the legal aid cuts; once the battle is lost (which it almost certainly will be), the focus should shift to public legal education and encouraging lawyers and would-be-lawyers to see themselves as responsible for increasing public understanding and access to the justice system. We also need to think carefully about whether we are doing enough pro-bono work – see my post How much free work should a lawyer do?

The CJC provides an important blueprint for a fairer and better system; it should be listened to, its recommendations taken seriously and, most importantly, funded. My fear is that there will be neither the will nor the money to carry out the transformation that the justice system really needs.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

View this document on Scribd


  1. Both in civil and criminal justice people with limited resouces who have harmed no-one should be kept out of system entirely.

    We now need to turn thr clock back to times when few people chose the Courts to litigate anything but the most serious matters and no-one was prosecuted if they had harmed no-one and caused no loss to anyone.

    Society is over regulated and over litigious entirely without necessity..

    Mediation is the way for both civil and criminal matter except indictable offence. The adversarial system is wrong for minor matters and minor infrigments of this over regulated and repressive society.

    If the Government are not going to provide free legal aid then they should repeal the thousands of repressive laws that are designed to trap the unwary and the vulnerable.

  2. Stewart Lawson says:

    Unless you’ve come from outside the cosy cocoon of the legal system and been a defendant or been a litigant in person you can’t possibly understand its massive shortcomings so having a judge and QC look at the system is a waste of time. I once got legal aid ( a misnomer of an expression anyway as its the lawyers who get it) and it doesnt allow sufficient time with a solicitor to explain everything so was largely a waste of time and public money. I was also shocked that I did not have to verify the time the solicitor spent on my case ie solicitors are trusted to claim honestly for their time and expenses without any proof. Though I was told I had a ‘robust defence’ I was put under tremendous pressure to plead guilty. I realised later when I got my 3rd diferent solicitor in the same firm that you dont have to work very hard or be very competent for your client when that happens. The core of injustice is the plea system – through my own ignorance I never understood this until I was in the position myself of being charged. Cases should just be presented and a jury decide on the facts presented. The public dont realise that pleading guilty doesnt mean the person is guilty anymore than pleading not guilty means the person is innocent but whenever a case is reported a guilty plea is reported as an admission of having committed the crime.

  3. Tara Davison says:

    The Report is interesting and incisive but does not cover criminal Legal Aid or the quasi Criminal/Civil Crown Court Restraint Orders.
    In a civil action the Litigant in person often has a choice as many are Claimants and there can be no chance the litigants will lose their liberty whereas in Criminal or quasi criminal actions the Litigants may face losing their liberty and everything they own to the Crown who peruses them.
    In civil actions lawyers and barristers hired by the opposite party oppose the Litigant in Person and are limited by their client’s budget. In Criminal action the State has inexhaustible funds to peruse the Litigant in Person.
    Legal Aid is no-longer free and no-longer offered to every person the State accuses of wrongdoing.
    We have a situation now where the very poor, those on benefits, will be granted free Legal Aid for Crown Court matters when accused by the State but those who work and own their homes will not.
    Litigants who have a modest income and their own property now face either pleading guilty at an early stage to minimise their losses or fighting for the truth and risk losing everything they own to pay the Legal Aid Board and the Prosecutions costs. Or representing themselves in a system which is totally unfriendly to them. How can this appalling injustice comply with Article 6?
    We also have a litigants with Crown Court Restraint Orders imposed on them preventing them from paying for legal advice or assistance who are at the same time denied Legal Aid to overturn the Order.
    It is to be hoped the Nobel Lords will also write a report on Litigants in Person in the Criminal and quasi Criminal Justice System.

  4. Tara Davison says:

    As a Litigant in Person (LIP) who has and is self represented in the High Court and been a Respondent in an appeal from a Masters Order my experience may have some value. Below are the salient but by no means all the points I would like to raise.

    1) The Intelligent LIP has no trouble understanding the law; it can be found in many books and comprehended through the precedents. But the procedure is a nightmare. There must be a simple way to find out what it is possible to do and what is not possible and what you must do.

    2) Legal professionals also have access to precedents which are not on Bali. Frequently I find a precedent I want but cannot acquire the full text and so must abandon the thought of using it. This is so frustrating and time consuming.

    3) The increase from 9.50 per hour to £18 is welcome for a LIP is welcome but with opposite represented parties lawyers charging £100 to £150 per hour for teams of lawyers and the QC £20,000 an appearance how can this be fair?
    To simplify costs it is reasonable for a LIP to charge 50% of whatever the represented party charges, save disbursements. This would level the playing field, encourage lawyers to minimise their fees and bring a Fair Trial within reach.

    4) Finally in my experience the Judges are wonderful both fair and helpful. It must be difficult for Judges to appreciate that the costs to a LIP are not just investing a large amount of their disposable income in the case but the huge costs to the LIP’s mental and physical health in negotiating a system apparently designed to frustrate them. Losing a case to a LIP invariably has an irrevocable and detrimental effect on the rest of their lives and the well being of their close family.

    For these reasons, and many more, I hope that the Fair Trial and Equality of Arms promise in the EHRA is considered at every stage.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: