Rise of LiPs “key challenge for family lawyers and courts system”


Judge: Impact of LiPs on judges

The rise in the number of litigants-in-person in the family courts since the 2013 legal aid reforms has topped a poll of the causes of discontent among family law practitioners for the fifth year running.

The result came as a former top judge warned the House of Lords the crisis was eating up judges’ time and building delays into the justice system.

Meanwhile, new family court statistics released by the government yesterday showed the proportion of disposals in private law cases where neither party had legal representation was 35%, which has doubled since the LASPO changes removed legal aid in most instances.

A similar trend in the opposite direction has affected the proportion of private law cases where both parties had representation.

The figures showed case type affected the proportion of parties with legal representation in cases with at least one hearing, ranging from around 75% in public law cases to just 2% for adoption cases.

The annual matrimonial survey by business advisers Grant Thornton found one in five of the family lawyers it consulted named the rise of litigants-in-person as being the biggest single issue facing their legal practice.

Other central issues the lawyers cited were overburdening of the family courts, delays resulting from court closures, and courts not being fit for purpose.

However, although practitioners raised litigants-in-person as their key challenge, as in previous years, they were less outspoken than before. The survey speculated this was because they had become “accustomed to dealing with the difficulties”.

Speaking yesterday in a House of Lords debate on the legal aid proposals of Lord Bach, former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said the rise in litigants-in-person was adding greatly to the workload of judges, causing delays, and prejudicing all litigants in the courts as a consequence.

He spoke of judges having to “delve through mounds of papers” and disordered bundles put together by inexpert, emotionally-charged and frightened litigants-in-person desperately seeking justice.

“The judge is faced with an exceptionally tricky and delicate course. He has to remain neutral and he has to be perceived to be neutral,” he said.

The former LCJ observed that sometimes there were litigants-in-person on both sides “with the same vast bundles only in a completely different order”, adding that there was a “concertina effect” with delay increasingly being built into the system:

“Cases take much longer than they did, at every level of the court… the judges are working harder and getting through fewer cases.

“The consequence to the administration of justice is [that…] a judge who could do 25 cases in the county court every day now can do only 15.”

Tags:




    Readers Comments

  • LIP says:

    On occasion ‘mounds of paper’ in ‘vast bundles’ are supplied by the represented party for no apparent reason other than to simply to ‘pad out’ the bundle. The LIP is then placed in the same position as the Judge in having to wade through the mire. The point being on occasion LIP’s are not always the source of the problem.

  • Seconded says:

    That is so true. There is a deliberate attempt to overload the LiP and to appeal to the judge to “punish” the interloper for daring to step outside the witness box. The represented party has to be convinced his “professional” has delivered a big bundle to justify the inflated bill


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

20 November 2018

Failing to find documents can have a serious impact on your bottom line

Indexing and searching in content management systems have serious weaknesses that haven’t always received the attention they need from law firms – up to 30% of documents are invisible to search.

Read More