Who Judges the Judges? Judicial Accountability, Litigants in Person and the Family Court Transparency Problem
A practical JSH Law guide for litigants in person on judicial accountability, complaints about judges, JCIO routes, transcripts, family court transparency and how AI could help scrutinise patterns of poor judicial conduct.
Family Court Accountability | Litigants in Person | Judicial Conduct
Who Judges the Judges? Judicial Accountability, Litigants in Person and the Family Court’s Transparency Problem
Most judges work under immense pressure and many treat litigants in person with patience, fairness and humanity. But where a judge bullies, humiliates, intimidates, stereotypes, dismisses or abuses the authority of the court, that is not simply a “bad day”. It is an access to justice issue. It is a public confidence issue. And in the family court, where parties are often gagged by privacy rules, fear and trauma, it is an issue that urgently needs proper scrutiny.
The core point
Judicial independence is essential. Nobody should want judges frightened into popularity contests or pressured by social media campaigns. But judicial independence is not the same thing as judicial impunity. A fair justice system must protect judges from improper pressure while also protecting court users from improper judicial conduct.
For litigants in person, particularly in private family law proceedings, the problem is acute. A represented party may have a solicitor or barrister to object, take a note, request clarification, advise on appeal, or identify misconduct. A litigant in person may leave court not even knowing whether what happened was normal, lawful, appealable, reportable, or simply wrong.
Why the Proudmans / Judge Lancaster example matters
A recent post by Proudmans, the specialist law firm founded by Dr Charlotte Proudman, highlights a wider public concern about judicial accountability. The post states that ten women reported Employment Tribunal Judge Philip Lancaster to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office over alleged inappropriate behaviour and misconduct, and that their complaints were initially dismissed before the JCIO agreed to reconsider them following a sustained campaign and legal challenge.
The reported allegations include intimidation, bullying, inappropriate conduct, shouting, hostile comments, excessive interruption and alleged misogynistic treatment. One complainant, Alison McDermott, has publicly described being left traumatised and ill after her hearing. The Proudmans post also raises a particularly important procedural concern: some complainants were reportedly criticised for not providing precise timestamps, despite being unable to access transcripts or recordings of their hearings.
That matters. If a complaints system demands forensic precision from traumatised or unrepresented court users, while those same court users cannot easily access the recording, transcript, or full evidential material needed to particularise the complaint, the system is structurally tilted against accountability.
Why this example resonates beyond the Employment Tribunal
The Lancaster complaints arose in the tribunal system, not the family court. But the accountability issue is directly relevant to family justice. In family proceedings, parties are often vulnerable, traumatised, financially stretched, self-representing, and subject to strict rules about confidentiality and publication. If judicial behaviour is poor, many litigants do not know how to evidence it, where to report it, or whether reporting it could make their case worse.
The point is not that every complaint against a judge is valid. It plainly is not. Judges make difficult decisions, often under pressure, and disappointed parties may wrongly interpret robust case management as bias. But where multiple complaints arise about similar behaviour by the same judge, those complaints should not be treated as isolated fragments if the alleged pattern is itself the warning sign.
Good judges, bad judging and the danger of unchecked courtroom power
It is important to be fair. Many family judges are excellent. Many are careful, humane and deeply alive to the realities of domestic abuse, safeguarding, trauma, poverty, neurodivergence, disability and the difficulties faced by litigants in person. Good judges can make the difference between a party feeling crushed by the system and a party feeling heard, even when the decision goes against them.
But the opposite is also true. Some court users experience judges as dismissive, impatient, sarcastic, hostile, humiliating or openly contemptuous. Some litigants in person describe being spoken over, patronised, mocked, cut off, or made to feel that the court has already decided they are difficult before they have even opened their bundle.
That matters because the courtroom is not an ordinary workplace. The judge controls the room. The judge controls the timing. The judge controls who speaks. The judge controls the direction of the case. The judge decides what evidence is heard, what weight is given to it, and what order is made. In family proceedings, those orders can affect where a child lives, how often a parent sees their child, whether protective measures are put in place, and whether allegations of abuse are properly tested.
Power can be used well. Power can also be abused. A system that refuses to confront that reality is not protecting judicial independence; it is protecting institutional defensiveness.
Judicial independence does not mean “a law unto themselves”
Judges must be independent from improper political, media or personal pressure. But they must also conduct hearings fairly, courteously and impartially. Judicial authority exists to serve justice. It does not exist to shield bullying, bias, contempt, discrimination or humiliation.
The Guide to Judicial Conduct exists because judges are not above standards. The JCIO exists because judicial office carries public responsibilities. The problem is not the absence of a formal system. The problem is whether that system is accessible, credible, transparent and capable of identifying patterns before more people are harmed.
Complaint, appeal or both? Litigants in person need this distinction
One of the most confusing issues for litigants in person is the difference between:
- complaining about a judge’s personal conduct;
- appealing a judge’s decision;
- asking a judge to recuse themselves because of apparent bias;
- complaining about court administration; and
- requesting a transcript or recording to prove what happened.
These are different routes. They have different tests, different forms, different deadlines and different outcomes.
| Problem | Usually the correct route | Important point |
|---|---|---|
| The judge made an order you believe is wrong | Appeal / application to vary / set aside, depending on the order and circumstances | The JCIO will not overturn a court order. |
| The judge refused evidence, limited questioning or controlled the timetable | Usually appeal, unless the conduct itself also raises misconduct | Case management is generally not a conduct complaint unless it crosses into misconduct. |
| The judge shouted, mocked, humiliated, used offensive language, appeared discriminatory, or behaved in a personally inappropriate way | Judicial conduct complaint to the JCIO | Record the exact words, time, hearing date, witnesses and effect on fairness. |
| The judge appeared biased or had a conflict of interest | Raise recusal/apparent bias issue in proceedings and consider appeal if necessary | Bias may be both an appeal issue and, in some circumstances, a conduct issue. |
| The court lost documents, failed to send an order, listed the case incorrectly, or mishandled administration | HMCTS complaint | HMCTS cannot discipline judges. |
| The JCIO mishandled your complaint | Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman | The Ombudsman reviews complaint handling, not the original court decision. |
Do not use a conduct complaint as a substitute appeal
If the real problem is that the judge made the wrong order, the remedy is normally an appeal, not a JCIO complaint. A conduct complaint will not change child arrangements, set aside findings, reopen evidence or suspend an order. Litigants in person need to be strategic: if the order is wrong, protect your appeal position. If the behaviour was improper, preserve the evidence and consider a conduct complaint.
What litigants in person can do if a judge behaves improperly
When a litigant in person is treated badly in court, the emotional instinct may be to argue back, freeze, leave, cry, or try to explain everything at once. That is understandable. But the practical task is to preserve the record, stay calm enough to protect your position, and separate the conduct issue from the legal issue.
1. Stay polite, but make a clear record
If safe and appropriate, a litigant in person can calmly say:
Suggested wording:
“Sir / Madam, I am finding it difficult to follow because I feel I am being interrupted. May I please finish my point?”
“I am a litigant in person. I understand the court must manage the hearing, but I would be grateful if I could be allowed to make my submission on this issue.”
“May the order please record that I asked to address the court on this issue and was not permitted to do so?”
“If the court is refusing that request, may I please have the reason recorded?”
This is not about being confrontational. It is about making the issue visible. If something is not recorded, it becomes much harder to prove later.
2. Take a detailed note immediately after the hearing
As soon as possible after the hearing, write down:
- the date, time and court;
- the judge’s name;
- the type of hearing;
- who was present;
- what was said, as close to the exact words as possible;
- whether the judge shouted, interrupted, laughed, mocked, threatened, stereotyped or used offensive language;
- whether the conduct affected your ability to present your case;
- whether your opponent, their representative, Cafcass, a legal adviser or court staff witnessed it;
- which part of the hearing it happened in; and
- what order was made afterwards.
3. Request the order and consider whether it accurately reflects what happened
In family proceedings, the sealed order matters. If the order does not reflect an important procedural event, consider whether you need to write promptly to the court asking for clarification or correction. Keep the letter factual. Do not vent. Do not insult the judge. Set out the issue plainly.
4. Consider requesting a transcript
Family hearings are generally recorded unless the court directs otherwise. Under Family Procedure Rule 27.9, hearings are tape recorded or digitally recorded unless the court directs otherwise, and parties may usually require a transcript on payment of the authorised charges. The official route for requesting a transcript is Form EX107.
Do not secretly record the hearing
Parties should not use unofficial recording equipment in court without permission. Family Procedure Rule 27.9 expressly restricts unofficial recording, and unauthorised recording can amount to contempt of court. If you need the record, use the proper transcript route or ask the court for permission where appropriate.
5. Get early help if the conduct affected the fairness of the hearing
If the judge’s conduct affected your ability to participate, present evidence, challenge allegations, respond to safeguarding concerns, or make submissions, do not wait. Time limits for appeals and complaints can be short. Take advice or structured procedural support quickly.
Where and how to report judicial conduct concerns
The correct route depends on the nature of the problem.
| Route | Use it for | Link |
|---|---|---|
| JCIO | Misconduct by salaried or fee-paid court judges, tribunal judges, coroners and some judicial office holders | Make a JCIO complaint |
| What can I complain about? | Checking whether the issue is misconduct rather than disagreement with the decision | JCIO guidance |
| JACO | Complaints about how the JCIO or other investigating body handled your conduct complaint | Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman |
| HMCTS complaint | Court administration: lost documents, delay, staff handling, listing problems, missing orders | HMCTS complaints procedure |
| Transcript request | Obtaining a written record of what was said at the hearing | Form EX107 |
| Appeal | Wrong decision, unfair process, procedural irregularity or unsafe findings | Check the appeal route and deadline urgently. Family appeal deadlines can be short. |
What a strong judicial conduct complaint should include
A strong complaint is specific, evidenced and focused on conduct. It should not simply say “the judge was biased” or “the judge was rude”. It should explain what happened.
Judicial conduct complaint checklist
- Judge’s full name and court.
- Case number, hearing date and hearing type.
- Whether the hearing was in person, remote or hybrid.
- Who was present.
- What the judge said or did, using exact words where possible.
- Approximate timing within the hearing.
- Whether the conduct was repeated.
- Whether anyone else witnessed it.
- Whether a transcript has been requested.
- Why the conduct was misconduct, not merely disagreement with the outcome.
- Whether the conduct affected your ability to participate fairly.
- Any relevant documents, orders, emails, notes or transcript extracts.
Examples of conduct that may justify a complaint
- shouting, bullying or humiliating a party;
- sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic or otherwise discriminatory language;
- mocking a litigant in person’s lack of legal knowledge;
- refusing to allow a party to speak in a way that appears personally hostile rather than case-management based;
- repeatedly interrupting one party but not the other in a way that suggests hostility or bias;
- making inappropriate personal comments;
- appearing to prejudge a party because they are a litigant in person, survivor of abuse, father, mother, disabled person, neurodivergent person or migrant;
- failing to declare a conflict of interest;
- using judicial status for personal advantage;
- sleeping during a hearing; or
- behaviour that creates a hostile or intimidating court environment.
The JCIO guidance makes clear that it deals with misconduct by judicial office holders, not appeals against decisions. That limitation is important. But it must not become a shield for behaviour that is dressed up as “case management” when, in substance, it is bullying, humiliation, hostility or discriminatory conduct.
The family court transparency problem: gagged, frightened and often unheard
Judicial accountability is especially difficult in the family court because family proceedings are generally private. The reasons are obvious: children must be protected, identities often need to be anonymised, and intimate details of family life should not be exposed unnecessarily.
But privacy has a cost. It can make the family court feel like a closed room where poor professional conduct is hidden from public view. Litigants in person often describe feeling gagged, not because there is no route at all, but because the rules are complex, the consequences of getting it wrong can be serious, and the emotional pressure is enormous.
The transparency reforms are important. The family court reporting provisions were extended to all family courts in England and Wales from 27 January 2025, and government guidance explains how journalists and legal bloggers may attend and report on family court cases subject to transparency orders and anonymity protections.
That is progress. But it is not enough. Transparency that depends on journalists and legal bloggers attending a tiny fraction of hearings will not capture the day-to-day experience of litigants in person across the country. Many problematic interactions will never be observed by the press. Many poor hearings will never produce a published judgment. Many litigants will never complain because they fear retaliation, delay, cost or being labelled difficult.
The access to justice issue
If a represented party is mistreated, their advocate may intervene. If a litigant in person is mistreated, they may not know what to say, what to record, what to request, or where to complain. That imbalance is itself an access to justice problem.
Family justice cannot depend on silence. Privacy for children should not become privacy for poor conduct. The system needs a better way to protect anonymity while allowing patterns of judicial behaviour to be identified, reviewed and addressed.
Could AI help scrutinise judicial behaviour?
Artificial intelligence should not replace judges. It should not decide children’s futures. It should not become an unaccountable black-box evaluator of human decision-making. But AI could have a legitimate role in judicial accountability if designed carefully, transparently and with proper safeguards.
The family court already records hearings. Transcripts can be produced. Orders can be reviewed. Complaints can be logged. The missing piece is pattern recognition. One isolated complaint may be dismissed. Ten similar complaints may reveal something very different. AI, used responsibly, could help identify those patterns earlier.
Possible responsible uses of AI
- Pattern detection: identifying repeated complaints about the same judge, same type of conduct, or same protected characteristic.
- Transcript analysis: measuring interruption patterns, speaking time, hostile language, repeated dismissive phrases or asymmetric treatment between parties.
- Litigant in person impact analysis: identifying whether unrepresented parties are interrupted more frequently or given less time to speak.
- Safeguarding sensitivity review: identifying whether domestic abuse, coercive control, disability, neurodivergence or trauma issues are being minimised or mishandled.
- Complaints triage: helping complaints bodies spot systemic concerns rather than treating every complaint as an isolated event.
- Training feedback: providing anonymised feedback to judicial training bodies about recurring courtroom behaviour issues.
AI scrutiny must be independent, explainable and anonymised
AI should not become another opaque institution marking its own homework. Any AI-assisted judicial accountability system would need independent oversight, human review, transparent methodology, bias testing, anonymisation, data protection controls, and clear appeal mechanisms for judges and court users alike.
The objective is not to create a hostile environment for judges. It is to build a fairer evidence base. Good judges should welcome proper scrutiny because scrutiny protects public confidence. Poor conduct should not be hidden behind the fact that most litigants cannot afford a transcript, do not understand the complaints route, and are terrified of speaking out.
What reform should look like
If judicial accountability is to be meaningful, reform needs to go beyond telling court users to fill in a complaint form.
1. Complaints should be assessed collectively where patterns are alleged
Where multiple people complain about similar behaviour by the same judge, the complaints body should consider whether there is a pattern. Treating each complaint as an isolated event can obscure precisely the thing the system needs to see.
2. Litigants should have better access to transcripts where conduct is challenged
If a complaint is rejected because a litigant cannot provide sufficient detail, but that litigant cannot access the material needed to provide that detail, the process becomes circular and unfair. There should be a clearer, faster and more affordable transcript route where alleged judicial misconduct is in issue.
3. The boundary between “case management” and “misconduct” must be applied realistically
Judges must manage cases. They must stop irrelevant questioning, control time, prevent abuse of process and keep hearings focused. But “case management” should not become a magic label that excludes bullying, intimidation, hostility or discriminatory treatment from scrutiny.
4. Litigants in person need plain-English guidance at court
Courts should provide practical guidance explaining the difference between appeal, conduct complaint, HMCTS complaint, transcript request and recusal. Litigants should not have to discover these routes through trauma, internet searches and trial-and-error.
5. Family court transparency must be strengthened without exposing children
The expansion of reporting provisions is welcome, but more is needed. Anonymity for children must remain central. But anonymity should not be used as a reason to prevent proper scrutiny of institutional behaviour, judicial culture or repeated procedural unfairness.
6. Judicial training should include trauma, domestic abuse, coercive control and litigants in person
A judge who does not understand trauma can mistake distress for evasiveness. A judge who does not understand coercive control can mistake fear for hostility. A judge who does not understand litigants in person can mistake confusion for non-compliance. The courtroom atmosphere is not cosmetic. It is part of procedural fairness.
7. The complaints system must command confidence
A watchdog that is perceived as defensive, inaccessible or reluctant to investigate patterns will not command public confidence. Judicial accountability requires a complaints process that is independent in substance, not just in structure.
Practical summary for litigants in person
- Do not assume every bad outcome is misconduct. Sometimes the route is appeal.
- Do not assume every judicial behaviour issue is “just how court is”. Bullying and humiliation are not acceptable.
- Write a detailed note immediately after the hearing. Include exact words and who witnessed them.
- Request the sealed order. Check whether it accurately records key procedural issues.
- Consider a transcript. Use Form EX107 where appropriate.
- Keep complaints factual. Avoid insults, emotion-heavy generalisations or unfounded allegations.
- Separate the routes. Appeal the decision if necessary; complain about conduct if misconduct is the issue.
- Act quickly. Complaint and appeal deadlines can be short.
- Get support. A litigant in person should not have to navigate this alone.
Need help preparing for family court?
JSH Law supports litigants in person with family court preparation, statements, chronologies, hearing notes, bundle organisation, safeguarding issues, Cafcass concerns and practical procedural support.
If you are worried about how you were treated in court, or you need help separating an appeal issue from a conduct complaint, you can book an initial consultation below.
Final thought: accountability protects justice
The justice system depends on public confidence. That confidence is not built by pretending poor judicial behaviour never happens. It is built by confronting it honestly, investigating it properly, and ensuring that litigants in person are not left powerless in rooms where everyone else understands the rules.
Good judges deserve respect. Vulnerable court users deserve dignity. Children deserve decisions made in a fair process. And the public deserves a justice system where judicial power is exercised with humanity, restraint and accountability.
Judicial independence matters. So does judicial responsibility. The two are not enemies. They are both essential to the rule of law.
Useful links and further reading
- Proudmans LinkedIn post on complaints concerning Employment Judge Philip Lancaster
- Judicial Conduct Investigations Office
- JCIO: Make a complaint
- JCIO: What can I complain about?
- Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
- HMCTS complaints procedure
- Form EX107: request a transcript of court or tribunal proceedings
- Family Procedure Rules Part 27: hearings, recordings and transcripts
- Guide to Judicial Conduct
- Transparency and reporting in the family courts
- Family court reporting provisions extended to all family courts in England and Wales
Regulatory & Editorial Notice
This article is provided for general public legal education and commentary only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a qualified solicitor, barrister or other authorised legal professional on the facts of an individual case.
JSH Law is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and does not conduct reserved legal activities. Support is provided to litigants in person in a practical, procedural and document-preparation capacity. Where advocacy, conduct of litigation, rights of audience, appeal advice or formal legal representation are required, readers should seek assistance from an appropriately authorised legal professional.
References to third-party posts, public commentary, judicial complaints or reported cases are included for public-interest discussion. Allegations remain allegations unless and until formally determined by the appropriate body or court. Readers should not publish identifying information from family proceedings without checking the applicable reporting restrictions, transparency order, court order and legal position.
