KateLeader, Litigants in Person in the Civil Justice System, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2024, 179 pp, hb £85.00JessicaMant, Litigants in Person and the Family Justice System, Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2024, 177 pp, hb £90.00

Civil and family justice is often spoken about as best provided through, and perhaps even dependent on, a full representation model whereby both parties to a dispute are represented by a lawyer. However, Litigants in Person (LiPs), those who self-represent in court proceedings, have been a noticeable population in these systems for many decades. Since the 2000s, there has been a growing body of empirical work from England and Wales on the impact of LiPs in the court system. This literature became particularly prominent after the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012), which drastically reduced the availability of legal aid – and subsequently the accessibility of funded or affordable legal support – in various court proceedings. In 2023, at least one LiP was involved in half of civil proceedings. The impact of LASPO is even more pronounced in the family justice context, where, also in 2023, at least one LiP appeared in over two-fifths of private family law proceedings. In their seminal and overlapping texts, Leader and Mant both uncover the experiences of LiPs in today's justice systems. The two monographs not only provide a crucial insight into the positioning and status of LiPs within the contemporary English and Welsh court system, but do so in a way that centres the LiP experience at the heart of the discussion. Rather than conceptualising LiPs as an inherent challenge for civil and family justice, both authors seek to understand how the court process can better accommodate this growing population. After an examination of each author's individual contributions, the final sections of this review will highlight the combined value of the two sources. Leader's Litigants in Person in the Civil Justice System is derived from 15 ‘oral history life-story interviews’ with LiPs who had been involved in various civil proceedings, from allegations of medical negligence to disputes around child contact. The monograph provides a crucial and unique perspective to the pre-existing scholarship by conceptualising those who choose to self-represent court as more than solely LiPs. Throughout the text, Leader uncovers the complex and multi-faceted lives of her interview sample. Chapter 3 onwards is inundated with lengthy but invaluable excerpts from the interviews, amplifying the voices of an often ignored and silenced population. Leader makes another significant contribution to the literature by recognising that a LiP's experience in court is just one factor that shapes their perception of civil justice, in addition to how they are perceived by legal practitioners and the broader public discourse. Leader's strong analysis of her interview data is cemented through the use of theoretical concepts. She applies Bourdieusian theory, building on the work of Foucault, alongside Larson's ‘professional project’, to uncover the myriad reasons why LiPs struggle in the court process (9-10). This combination of theories is a strength of the text, allowing Leader to identify a ‘gap between lay and law’ that permeates beyond the courtroom into the wider civil justice system. Leader also makes frequent reference to both socio-legal and non-legal scholarship, combining the two to ensure her critique considers LiPs both within and outside their dominant legal conceptualisation (11). Despite its value as a contribution, this conceptual framework is not presented by Leader as at the forefront of her argument: instead, that focus is placed on the experiences of her participant sample. The book is separated into three parts, the first of which provides a crucial backdrop to the civil justice system after LASPO 2012 by considering the overall position of LiPs in the debates around civil justice. Chapters 1 and 2 specifically explore the reasons behind the predominantly negative and unsympathetic perceptions of LiPs, with Leader explaining that LASPO has rendered LiPs ‘the harbingers of the potential downfall of the civil justice system’ (18). She is critical of this point throughout the monograph, arguing that whilst LiPs certainly do generate a number of challenges for the civil court system, the sole blame for these issues is too often placed on LiPs rather than the legal process around them (21). She traces the notion of the ‘LiP’ back to the creation of the new County Courts in 1847, which rendered the lower courts the territory of the legal profession (38). The monograph is thus valuable in helping us understand not only the experiences of LiPs in civil justice, but also why the court process is so predicated on various social, cultural and legal norms. For instance, she recognises that by the end of the 19th century, the dominant view was that only qualified and trained professionals should be advocating in court. In short, the concept of LiP, a self-representing litigant, ‘only makes sense when legal representation is the norm’ (61). Leader's empirical data is first used in Chapter 3 to reveal the diverse characteristics and experiences of the LiPs in her sample. While her interviewees varied in terms of their legal matters and background, a noticeable trend emerged: most had been involved in multiple proceedings, not one-off cases. As a result, 13 out of 15 participants in Leader's study had instructed lawyers at some point, and all of them were critical of their experiences with legal professionals. Leader builds on this finding by identifying a noticeable gap in our current understanding whereby we do not consider how ‘negative experiences with legal professionals’ can create LiPs and shape their practices (88). Part 2 is heavily based on Leader's life-story interviews and explores LiPs’ experiences with the legal process as a self-representing party. The purpose of Chapter 4 becomes immediately apparent to the reader: to demonstrate that LiPs, as individuals, and as reflected in their legal cases, ‘are significantly more complex and challenging than expected’ (94). Leader's conceptual framework becomes more prominent in this chapter, as she argues that LiPs’ various vulnerabilities are regularly overlooked. She focuses on LiPs’ accounts of how they were impacted by their legal proceedings, with financial and emotional costs emerging as prominent themes. However, Leader once again ensures a much more nuanced and developed analysis than is often expected in the civil justice scholarship, recognising that these vulnerabilities were both demonstrated and furthered by LiPs’ often ‘obsessive pursuit’ of their case (112-113). Chapter 5, by comparison, takes a more standard approach to the project by identifying the common difficulties faced by LiPs. Interview extracts confirm a divergence between the legal knowledge expected of court users and how LiPs, with little to no legal education or training, understand the law in practice. Leader's discussion returns to Bourdieusian theory and the professional project to demonstrate that legal practitioners use ‘legal knowledge’, including but not limited to technical legal terms, to create an obvious imbalance of power which secures the status of their profession (120). Importantly, Leader submits that redressing this imbalance is near-impossible for LiPs, especially when they are given inconsistent and contradictory information. She concludes that our investigation is once again misdirected: rather than asking why the legal process is so difficult for LiPs, we should be asking ‘[h]ow is it even possible for LiPs to go to law successfully’ (138). Part 3 only comprises one chapter but continues to demonstrate Leader's original contribution. In Chapter 6, Leader considers the aftermath of civil proceedings for LiPs, noting that most of her sample felt disillusioned with the civil justice system. Of particular interest is her discussion of ‘conspiracist thinking’ amongst the interviewees, with a number of interviewees negatively associating the legal system with Judaism or Freemasonry (149). Leader reiterates that only a minority of her sample expressed such views and that this trend provides some insight into why some people – particularly LiPs – turn to conspiracy theories after engaging with the civil law. Excerpts are provided to illustrate how several LiPs believed in an ‘elite’ that controlled the court process, doing so to help them understand their ‘losses’ (whether that loss pertained to how they were treated during proceedings or the overall outcome of their case). Leader, who herself is Jewish (66), reflects on these worrying trends, describing them as ‘easily one of the most upsetting aspects of the study’ (150). Yet despite her personal connection to the subject, Leader approaches the issue with empathy, returning her analysis to the inaccessibility of societal and cultural expectations within the court process, arguing that these factors can often foster conspiracist or obsessive tendencies. While Leader considers the experiences of LiPs in the civil justice system over a longer timeline, Mant's Litigants in Person and the Family Justice System provides a detailed account of family law LiPs in England and Wales specifically after LASPO 2012. Through a discussion of interviews with 23 LiPs involved in such cases from 2017, Mant provides a fresh perspective on the problems with the court system for LiPs with a variety of issues. Her sample alone demonstrates the prevalence of vulnerabilities amongst LiPs, with 12 of Mant's interviewees having experienced a form of domestic violence and six living with life-long learning difficulties (12). Mant's discussion of such vulnerabilities, woven into a comprehensive and unique conceptual framework, renders her work an essential text for anyone concerned with the status of the post-LASPO 2012 English and Welsh family justice system. Chapter 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the state of family justice before and after LASPO 2012. This chapter will be of particular value to those new to family law or access to justice scholarship. Mant identifies LASPO as a ‘turning point for family justice’, recognising that the possibility of legal aid being reinstated (and legal representation subsequently becoming more accessible) in private family law proceedings is unlikely for the foreseeable future (7). She subsequently adopts an unorthodox approach to the question of how to resolve the access to justice crisis, arguing that LASPO provides the opportunity to resolve ‘some of the systemic problems that have always characterised the family justice system (8)’. Unsurprisingly, Mant is concerned with giving a voice to LiPs and removing the disadvantages they often face in the family courts. There may be questions around the validity of Mant's findings where LASPO 2012 has been in force for over a decade and a number of policy reforms have since been introduced. However, Chapter 2 reinforces the relevance of Mant's work by considering the current (and future) family justice landscape. Through tracking neoliberal trends and the decline in legal aid services, Mant acknowledges the key issues that dominate current scholarship. She extends these discussions to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, recognising that online hearings risk distressed or confused LiPs not being identified by court staff (36). Mant advances that the impact of the pandemic on LiPs must be considered alongside the prevalence of domestic abuse, where the digitisation of court remains a noticeable concern. Throughout the monograph, Mant calls for a joined-up analysis of the post-LASPO family justice system. Mant does not provide as many excerpts from her interviews as Leader, but she provides a critical contribution to the literature through her conceptual framework. This is the focus of Chapter 3. The framework consists of four theoretical approaches, combined to ensure that the limitations of one theory are resolved by the strengths of another (42-59). Mant's framework first focuses on the frequent marginalisation of LiPs’ perspectives through the use of feminist theory. She combines this with the second element, the Bourdieusian theory of social class, to reveal how the structural inequality experienced by most LiPs is a result not only of limited economic resources, but also ‘hierarchies of cultural value’ (51). The third prong of Mant's conceptual framework is Fineman's vulnerability theory, revealing how LiPs, like any human being, are inherently vulnerable. Combined, the three theories enable Mant ‘to account for the complex effects of inequality, whilst also considering how people may be disadvantaged because of the ways that institutions operate’ (55). Mant develops the conceptual framework even further by bringing in a final element of Actor-Network Theory, enabling her to explore how LiPs experience an endless number of barriers. This complex conceptual theory, which even Mant recognises as ‘by no means a simple task’, is imperative to centring LiPs in the contemporary family justice debate (61). Subsequent chapters are premised on Mant's interview data to highlight LiPs’ experiences within the modern family justice system. For instance, Chapter 4 examines how LiPs attempt to navigate the varying customs of the family court. Mant makes frequent reference to previous literature in the area before utilising Bourdieusian theory to explain why familiarity with various norms, including the use of paperwork, renders legal practitioners better equipped for proceedings (65-66). Echoing a very similar claim by Leader, Mant posits that the justice system subsequently positions LiPs as illegitimate court users. It is thus not the lack of legal representation that creates barriers for LiPs, but rather the design and operation of the court process (67). Mant even refers to Leader's PhD thesis, before arguing that unspoken cultural expectations are a way through which the legal space becomes an inaccessible and distressing arena for self-representing litigants (73, 75). Many of Mant's chapters delve into specific aspects of court proceedings in great detail. Chapter 5 examines how LiPs communicate throughout their case and the extent to which they contribute to courtroom discussions. Unsurprisingly, Mant reveals her sample's difficulty with ‘emulating the performative nature of speaking’ which is expected of advocates, again linking this to Bourdieusian theory to reinforce the high levels of experience and knowledge required to be an effective participant (83). Mant then touches upon three specific elements of private family law proceedings: the use of bundles and paperwork, cross-examinations from the opposing side's lawyers or a perpetrator of abuse, and the hiring of McKenzie Friends. On each occasion, Mant's conceptual framework and empirical insights are woven in a way that adds substance to her findings. For example, her discussion of court bundles reveals that many LiPs view paperwork as a means through which to make a good impression on the judge, though they sometimes overprepare these documents causing the opposite effect (89-90). Mant then considers whether LiPs can actually have a significant role in the family court system, particularly where limited resources mean judges often come to hearings with a very limited understanding of the case at hand (108). In Chapter 6, Mant makes a pivotal distinction between cases where there are one or two LiPs present, highlighting that all 17 LiPs in her sample who were faced with an opposing lawyer had felt mistreated by them. In comparison, the cases with no lawyer present were less structured, which whilst appearing problematic could enable more flexible ways for LiPs to participate (122-123). Those observations come with the consistent caution from Mant, however, that the disputants she spoke to did not have a uniform experience, and that family court can be exploitative and damaging for any LiP. Again, similar to Leader, Mant dedicates the final chapters of her monograph to considering the impact of these proceedings on her interview sample. Mant's analysis is fresh and original, from how she considers the feelings of luck or chance felt by LiPs who had a successful hearing (137), to the sample's regular use of social media for support before, during and after their proceedings (145). The monograph concludes by reiterating that LiPs are presented as the ‘source’ of the issues in the post-LASPO 2012 family justice system, yet they are frequently failed by the management and conducting of the court process (157). Mant makes realistic and pragmatic recommendations for change, acknowledging that the neoliberal agenda and the focus on costs will continue to shape reform (159). As a result, Mant leaves the reader with a crucial implication of her work: that the future of family justice will be ‘just as complicated’ as its past (162). When considering the two monographs together, a number of similarities – and strengths – can be identified. First and foremost, both Leader and Mant are committed to centring the voice of LiPs in their relevant scholarship. They are empathetic to the positioning of LiPs and the negative label they regularly receive, even within the pre-existing scholarship that seeks to uncover their experiences. Departing from the standard view, the two authors accept LiPs as a valid population in the court process. Consequently, both monographs provide an invaluable criticism of how the legal process is set up to disadvantage LiPs. The authors’ data is strengthened by their conceptual frameworks, demonstrating the value of situating empirical data within broader theoretical critiques. Leader and Mant's texts could subsequently generate change for some of the most vulnerable people in our legal systems. Second, the two texts are incredibly well-written and will be readable to those with limited knowledge of the post-LASPO 2012 civil and family justice systems, as well as those with expertise in the area. Combined, they paint a detailed picture of the state of contemporary civil and family justice. The sources would be a perfect fit for many undergraduate and postgraduate law modules, encouraging students to view LiPs as something other than an inherent problem in the court process. Finally, it feels apt to conclude this review by recognising that both texts derive from work and research conducted by the authors as postgraduate researchers. Despite the limitations that PhD students often face, Leader and Mant's work is thorough, detailed and responsive. Perhaps this is because as postgraduate researchers, Leader and Mant were well placed to identify the gaps in the literature that had come before them. From this, they could find a way forward, with their recommendations being both realistic and optimistic. In summary, Litigants in Person in the Civil Justice System and Litigants in Person and the Family Justice System are two fundamental contributions to the current justice scholarship, and a testament to the significance of work conducted by junior colleagues.