The image of justice in the public imagination often involves two skilled advocates locked in battle, robed and ready, before a calm and watchful judge. But increasingly, that image no longer reflects the daily reality of our courts. In growing numbers, individuals are turning up alone - unrepresented, unsupported, and underprepared. These are the litigants in person (LiPs), and they are no longer the exception. They are fast becoming a fixture.

According to recent data published by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), over a third of civil cases and nearly half of private family law proceedings now involve at least one unrepresented party. The reasons are well known: the erosion of legal aid following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; rising legal fees; and a cost-of-living crisis that leaves many unable to afford legal advice, let alone full representation.

The Limits of Fairness

In family proceedings, the stakes could not be higher. These are cases involving children, domestic abuse, separation and safety. And yet many people are navigating them alone, often opposite a represented party or a local authority.

Litigants without legal training are expected to absorb complex procedural rules, meet court deadlines, and present their case persuasively, all while enduring the deeply personal events that brought them there. The emotional toll of self-representation is immense, and the risk of procedural missteps is ever-present.

It is not uncommon to see hearings derailed by confusion over what evidence is admissible, how to structure a position statement, or what questions can be asked in cross-examination. The adversarial system places great weight on advocacy, but the courts are increasingly being asked to referee imbalance rather than resolve disputes.

McKenzie Friends and the Space Between

Into this widening gap have stepped McKenzie Friends, non-lawyers who support unrepresented parties with paperwork, preparation, and quiet reassurance in court. Once seen as peripheral, they are now an established part of the courtroom landscape. Figures like Brian Hudson at Family Court Guide, who has developed a structured, full-time practice supporting clients across family proceedings, show how this role has evolved in both scale and credibility.

“I didn’t start this work as a professional. I started it as a parent - exhausted, overwhelmed, and blindsided by a system I didn’t understand. Family court nearly broke me. Not just emotionally - but financially, mentally, spiritually, while leaving me vulnerable to exploitation and damaging my resilience to weathering the storm. I faced false allegations. I faced manipulation. I faced the fear of losing my children, and I faced people I trusted taking

advantage at the time I desperately needed them to have my back. And I had no idea who to turn to. That experience didn’t just leave scars - it lit a fire. Everything we do at Family Court Guide comes from living through it. We’re building the service I desperately needed back then” – Brian Hudson, McKenzie Friend www.brianhudson.uk

McKenzie Friends operate ethically and professionally, offering a crucial bridge between full representation and complete isolation. Increasingly, they work with counsel, especially on a direct access basis, supporting clients at hearings where advice and advocacy are essential.

This collaborative model brings clear cost benefits. With the McKenzie Friend assisting behind the scenes, counsel can focus on advocacy and legal advice, making representation financially viable for clients who would otherwise go without.

Done properly, it’s a model that upholds, not undermines, the fairness of proceedings.

A System Under Strain

The impact on the judiciary cannot be overlooked. Cases involving LiPs often take longer, require more judicial intervention, and increase the procedural burden on already stretched court staff. As highlighted in the Bar Council’s 2024 Report on Access to Justice, the current volume of self-represented parties is "unsustainable", both practically and ethically, with the number of parties in court without a legal representative risen from 13 per cent to 36 per cent.

Judges must strike a near-impossible balance: remaining impartial, while stepping in to explain legal concepts, guide the unrepresented party, and prevent serious injustice. It’s a delicate act that threatens the neutrality of the bench, and in doing so, chips away at the core foundations of adversarial justice.

Rethinking Representation

What emerges is not a call to abandon tradition, but a plea to re-examine how we deliver justice in a landscape where legal representation is no longer guaranteed. The expansion of legal aid, properly funded and made accessible to vulnerable parties, is a necessary first step. But until that political will materialises, we must equip litigants to better navigate the system they are increasingly left to face alone.

The principle of open justice rests on more than physical access to the courtroom. It demands comprehension, participation, and dignity. For litigants in person, too many of these elements remain out of reach.

Until we repair the cracks in legal aid, we must find ways, formal and informal, to ensure that justice is not just visible, but truly available to those who need it most. Because in a society governed by law, no one should have to face court alone.

Milad Shojaei is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row, qualified to accept instructions on a direct access basis. If you wish to instruct him, please contact his clerks at clerks@33br.co.uk