Jessica Mant, Bloomsbury Professional
Overview
Jessica Mant’s Litigants in Person and the Family Justice System is a comprehensive and thought-provoking examination of the realities faced by those navigating family courts without legal representation. Three years on, it feels more relevant than ever, as litigants in person (LiPs) continue to shape the day-to-day reality of family practice.
I found Mant’s work both interesting and, at times, rather heavy going. The depth of research is impressive, and the book is clearly the product of extensive interviews, case studies, and policy analysis. For me, it is a book to dip in and out of, rather than read straight through – some chapters are dense, but the insights are worth the effort.
Bourdieusian lens and cultural disadvantage
Mant approaches the subject through a Bourdieusian lens, arguing that LiPs are culturally disadvantaged within the family justice system – that those unfamiliar with its language, expectations and unwritten rules are placed at a structural disadvantage. While this is an insightful perspective, I am not entirely persuaded that it reflects the current reality in practice. In my experience as a family barrister, I have witnessed significant changes in the way courts operate. Judges, lawyers, and court staff are increasingly aware of the difficulties faced by LiPs and are proactive in ensuring that those without representation are not left behind. The system is far from perfect, but there is a genuine and ongoing effort to make the process accessible and less intimidating for all.
It is important to acknowledge that LiPs will always face some disadvantage simply by virtue of not being legally trained. However, I do not believe this equates to cultural exclusion in the way Mant suggests. The courts I attend are committed to fairness and transparency, and I regularly see professionals going out of their way to explain procedures, answer questions, and provide reassurance to LiPs.
Key insights and practical barriers
Mant’s analysis of the practical, emotional, and procedural barriers encountered by LiPs is thorough and compelling. She details the difficulties in understanding legal forms, preparing evidence, and presenting a case – challenges that are magnified for those already facing social or economic disadvantage. The book also highlights the profound impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), which has resulted in the majority of private family law cases now involving at least one LiP. This shift has placed additional pressure on both the courts and the individuals involved, often to the detriment of access to justice.
Finding a role in the family justice system
Chapter 6, ‘Finding a Role in the Family Justice System’, was particularly striking. Mant recounts LiPs’ experiences of interacting with judges and opposing lawyers, including instances where they felt excluded or intimidated. She quotes one LiP’s experience:
“…nine LiPs felt that their opposing lawyers would actively use their legal knowledge and their understanding of court customs to try and deny LiPs opportunities to participate in their hearings…”
Mant goes on to describe examples where lawyers attempted to ‘force’ LiPs to sign orders or suggested that agreeing matters outside the courtroom would result in more favourable treatment from the judge. While these accounts are concerning, I am hopeful that such situations are increasingly rare. The culture within the courts is evolving, and there is a clear emphasis on supporting LiPs and ensuring that all parties are treated with respect.
Reflections from practice
From my own recent experience, I can confirm the importance of treating LiPs with courtesy and respect – just as one would any professional opponent. In a recent Children Act case, the LiP was the primary carer of the child and faced significant mental health challenges. On two occasions, the judge specifically asked me to speak with the LiP: once to agree forms of contact, and again to agree the Order. As always, I engaged with the LiP before and after the hearing, ensuring she felt heard and understood. She later described me as “calm and considerate” – a compliment I value highly.
I am also frequently instructed by LiPs via the Direct Access scheme, where the LiP is my client rather than the person on the other side. In these situations, I make it a point to explain that their spouse or ex-partner may be acting in person, and that I will approach them before going into court, just as I would with any represented party. Judges have, on occasion, thanked me for taking the time to speak with LiPs about matters outside of court. Ultimately, it is about putting oneself in the other person’s shoes – something we strive to do for all our clients, and which should extend to everyone involved in the process.
Agency, resilience, and recommendations
One of the strengths of Mant’s work is her recognition of the agency and resilience displayed by LiPs. She challenges the narrative that LiPs are simply a “problem” for the system, instead highlighting their resourcefulness and determination. The emotional toll of self-representation is not underestimated, and Mant’s recommendations for reform are both practical and constructive.
She calls for a more inquisitorial and user-centred approach, improved information and signposting, and greater judicial and practitioner awareness of the realities faced by LiPs. These suggestions are highly relevant for those working within the system and align closely with Resolution’s mission.
Understanding and improving the system
In her final chapter, Mant urges those of us familiar with the family justice system to better understand LiPs’ experiences and perceptions, and to use these insights to improve the system for all. I wholeheartedly agree with this call for greater empathy and reflection. However, Mant’s comment that the family justice system has “systematically excluded” those unfamiliar with its processes, while accurate in describing the effect, does not, in my view, reflect a deliberate intention to exclude. Rather, the complexity and traditions of the system have inadvertently created barriers for those without legal training. The ongoing reforms and the commitment of professionals within the courts demonstrate a genuine desire to make the system more inclusive and accessible.
Relevance to Resolution
The book’s insights and recommendations are directly relevant to the ongoing work of Resolution’s LiPs Committee. As the number of LiPs continues to grow, supporting members to navigate these cases with confidence, fairness, and empathy is increasingly important. Mant’s work provides a useful lens through which to reflect on both practice and reform. It is essential reading for anyone involved in family justice reform, and I would encourage colleagues to engage with Mant’s arguments, even where they may disagree.
Conclusion
Litigants in Person and the Family Justice System is a significant contribution to the literature on family justice. Jessica Mant’s research is rigorous and her analysis is balanced, offering constructive suggestions for how the system can better support all users. The book is not always an easy read, but it is an important one – particularly for those of us working within the system it seeks to challenge and improve.
Sapna Shah, barrister and head of private family law, 33 Bedford Row
Read Resolution’s Good Practice Guide to Working with Litigants in Persons
See Resolution’s resources for LiPs
