An appraisal system should be introduced for family judges, so that they can hear feedback on their performance and to reassure the public about the quality of the judiciary, the Law Society has suggested.

In its response to the government’s family justice review, Chancery Lane said that there should be more specialist family judges and more sitting time, to give judges ‘the opportunity to robustly manage their cases and ensure that these are dealt with efficiently’.

The paper, which was compiled with input from the Society’s family and children law committees, said: ‘We believe that there should be quality assurance mechanisms in place for all key stakeholders within family proceedings. Solicitors are bound by the Solicitors Code of Conduct and there is a Legal Ombudsman to handle any complaints.’

It added: ‘We believe that an appraisal system should be established for the judiciary to receive feedback on their performance, and provide public reassurance about judicial quality. However, we recognise that there are significant cost implications in establishing and maintaining such a system.’

The Law Society said that better case management, judicial continuity and early identification of the key issues would lead to shorter family hearings, and free up court capacity.

It also voiced concerns about the ability of lay magistrates to manage cases. The paper said: ‘We are concerned that, with the further increase of litigants in person appearing in family matters, lay benches may not ensure robust case management and may not be able to deal efficiently with these cases.’

The Law Society paper warned that the family system is ‘riddled with delay’. It noted that when the Children Act 1989 came into force, care cases were expected to be concluded within 12 weeks, but the average length of time to conduct a case is now 51 weeks. Chancery Lane said the public law outline should be ‘robustly managed by the judiciary’.

The Society said it would support the introduction of a ‘no- fault divorce’ to reduce the adversarial nature of proceedings. It would also support an investigation into whether a ‘tracking court system’ could be established for ancillary relief, with the judiciary acting as the gatekeeper.

The paper said that while the use of alternative dispute resolution should be ‘incentivised’ in private law cases, the Society would oppose compulsory mediation. The submission also noted that the system should be ‘less bureaucratic’, with the volume of paperwork in care proceedings ‘ever increasing’.