One consequence of
the cuts in Access to legal advice has been the growth in the number of DIY
litigants, those who represent themselves in court because they cannot afford
to get anybody else to do it. I can remember when a Litigant in Person was a
rare phenomenon, often a person who had fallen out with a series of legal
advisers. Everything has changed. The numbers are growing by the day. We all knew
that such litigants had become a major feature of our courts’ system when they
became LiPs. Once you have an acronym you have arrived!
The problem is that
for most people, our justice system is a strange and scary world.
This leads to
litigation which takes longer, is less certain and which carries a far greater
risk of injustice. That is particularly the case where one side, say an insurer
in an accident claim, is represented by top lawyers and the other side is
battling alone. In view of the recent proposal by the government to bring
most accident claims into the small claims court, we will see an explosion of
LiPs.
The problem has been
highlighted today by Lady Justice King who referred to a case involving
litigants in person and which saw a - ‘slew’ of emails from both parties
to the judge and the court, which made the case ‘nearly impossible to case
manage effectively’
She called for there
to be powers to curb the activities of such litigants. There is a risk that out
justice system could become log jammed and ultimately a laughing stock.
The need to address
this is recognised by most lawyers and judges.
One of our most senior judges
talked about the problem earlier this week. Sir Terence Etherington, Master of the
Rolls acknowledged the real need to improve access to justice in the face
of deep financial cuts. His suggestion was that law graduates could fill
the gap. He called for a joint initiative involving universities and
pro bono agencies enabling students who have passed their exams to assist
litigants in person.
‘They would do so as
trainees registered with the university or pro bono advice centre, but only
following training akin to that already given by such organisations. And they
would be supervised by lawyers – permanent employees of [advice centres] or
other lawyers provided pro bono by law firms or chambers.’
This sounds
promising, but in reality it is a hopeful fantasy. Universities already do a
sterling job trying to fill the justice gap. One such initiative is the Legal
Advice Clinic run by Liverpool John Moores University. They provide free advice
in relation to Family, Employment and Wills/Probate. The students provide a
high quality service with help from volunteer lawyers. It is a demanding
project. Students have to be carefully trained and supervised. Resources are
stretched to the limit. To suggest that they could take on full responsibility
for advising hundreds of litigants in person is simply not realistic. This is
not to diminish the value of law students. We have all been there. Even Lord
Pannick QC was once a student! But they and their teachers cannot be expected
to fill the massive gaps in access to advice. Not without far greater resources.
Those resources could just as easily go to funding established advice agencies.
Universities will do
what they can.
Pro Bono lawyers will
do what they can.
Underfunded advice
agencies will do what they can.
But until justice is
seen as a political priority we are really just maintaining the deck chairs on
a sinking ship.
No comments:
Post a Comment