Parliamentary report puts finger on rise in number of LiPs

Topics: Advocacy,Family and children,Legal aid and access to justice

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (7)
  • Save

Related images

  • Parliamentwinter

A non-partisan study published by parliament has added to the body of evidence attributing the rising number of litigants in person (LIPs) to cuts to legal aid.

A briefing paper produced by the House of Commons library research service includes details of a study into the experiences and support needs of LIPs in private family cases that was carried out for the Ministry of Justice in five courts, including a detailed analysis of 151 cases.


It found that appearing in person was wholly or partially a matter of choice for only one-quarter of LIPs.

Meanwhile, LIPs were no more likely to bring unmeritorious and serial applications than represented parties. Around half of those observed had one or more vulnerabilities, making it more difficult or, in some cases impossible, for them to represent themselves.

House of Commons library briefing papers provide MPs and their staff with an ‘impartial briefing and evidence base they need to do their work in scrutinising government, proposing legislation and supporting constituents’.

Papers on civil legal aid changes since 2013 and access to justice for vulnerable people were also published this week.

The paper on litigants in person highlights disagreement between the Magistrates’ Association and the MoJ on the extra time needed to deal with LiPs.

Commenting on the justice committee’s inquiry into the impact of legal aid changes, the paper states: ‘The justice committee also remarked that - notwithstanding the fact that hearing times are not a reliable indicator of how well or not a LIP is able to present their case - it had heard mixed evidence about whether cases took longer when LIPs were involved.

‘The Magistrates’ Association had suggested that they did, whereas the MoJ had cited its own research as indicating that they did not.’

The paper notes the justice committee’s conclusion that ‘there was no “silver bullet” to solve problems faced by LIPs and that they ‘should be given every possible help’.

The paper states that ‘commentators such as the National Audit Office and Commons public accounts and justice committees agree that the 2012 act’s changes have reduced spending on civil legal aid, but have questioned whether they have increased costs elsewhere in the system’.

The paper also notes that, in response to the justice committee’s inquiry, the ministry ‘defended the robust line it takes on exceptional funding, arguing that it should be available only where lack of legal aid would breach rights under the European Convention on Human Rights under EU law.

‘The MoJ did not agree that people who had been refused exceptional funding were at risk of a miscarriage of justice’.

Readers' comments (7)

  • Parliamentary report...states obvious.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Parliamentary report...cost millions to state the obvious

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Perhaps TLS and the various other representative bodies could now direct the public and political debate away from legal aid rates of pay and instead concentrate on access to justice and how that is to be achieved. The Government has got away with its slaughter of our justice systems because "the fee" has been the main point of discussion-and Joe Public doesn't want lawyers to get a penny of taxpayers' money. However, access to justice is a topic on which Joe Public might just agree with the lawyers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And it will be lovely to see what happens when we have even more unqualified 'advisers' at work with the CMA Investigation conclusion.

    Far from being concerned I am warmly satiated by the whole business.

    A friend of a friend once said to me that there are two ways he advised his clients to get things done in the Law. Firstly to go down to the Legal Aid Area HQ itself and shout and scream until the staff gave them Legal Aid, the second was to get a client to go to their MP telling that client that MP's were now allowed to offer free legal aid services as they had agreed to do that after the withdrawal of legal aid.

    The problem was he said was he got a furious MP screaming at him down the phone who couldn't cope with the numbers going there.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Its very much a pop corn moment for me.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree that the agenda has to move away from the "fee" to the need for an accessible legal system / legal advice in a democratic society. The problem is that it will take years for the true affect to hit home but in the meantime swamping the courts with LIPS is a good start. Faced with evidence from the magistrates or the MOJ I know which one I would prefer.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Is the obvious fact that lawyers have priced themselves out of the market and clients will seek alternatives?

    LiPs are only a transitional phenomenon. Susskind ("The future of the professions") illustrates how online dispute resolution is already replacing courts.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (7)
  • Save


Solicitor fined over £2m SDLT avoidance scheme

21 October 2016By

Kelly Buckle-Fleming acted in transactions where there was a ‘significant risk of conflict’.


MoJ concession on ‘borderline’ legal aid cases

21 October 2016By

Funding may be granted for certain cases with a 45%-50% prospect of success – but still no review date for LASPO.

Kevin Poulter

Posthumous pardons for gay men ‘not enough’

21 October 2016By

Society welcomes move but LGBT committee criticises lack of formal apology.


Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

Legal Services

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition