Access to Justice Will Not Improve Until Litigants in Person Are Treated as First-Class Legal Tech Users

Why courts, regulators, and legal-tech designers must stop building only for lawyers

“Access to justice” is one of the most repeated phrases in modern legal reform — and one of the least honestly examined in day-to-day court reality.

Across England and Wales, litigants in person (LiPs) now make up a significant proportion of users in family proceedings, civil disputes, tribunals and administrative processes. Yet much of the system — and much of legal tech — still assumes that a lawyer is the default user, and the unrepresented party is the exception.

They are not.

LiPs are a structural feature of the justice landscape. Until courts, regulators, and legal-tech providers explicitly recognise LiPs as first-class stakeholders, “access to justice” will remain aspirational rather than operational.

Key takeaways

• Litigants in person are not marginal — they are central to how courts now function.
• Legal tech designed only for lawyers often creates disadvantage for LiPs.
• Courts can reduce chaos by setting clearer procedural standards and roadmaps.
• Regulators can unlock innovation by clarifying the line between navigation support and legal advice.
• Human-centred tools can improve compliance, fairness and efficiency without replacing lawyers.

1. The post-LASPO reality: LiPs are the system, not a problem within it

In a post-LASPO environment, it is common for one or both parties to be unrepresented. That reality increases pressure on judges, listing, court staff, and the opposing party (who may be represented). It also increases the risk of:

• missed deadlines and procedural missteps
• overlong or irrelevant bundles
• adjournments and delay
• hearings spent explaining process rather than determining issues
• avoidable unfairness

These are not personal failings. They are predictable outcomes when systems are built around assumptions that no longer match real users.

2. Why most legal-tech tools fail litigants in person

Many tools that work well for professionals become actively unhelpful when applied to LiPs without redesign. Legal platforms typically assume users can:

• interpret procedural stages and sequencing
• identify which evidence is relevant (and why)
• understand directions, service rules, and deadlines
• use legal terminology accurately
• separate emotion from issues and evidence

LiPs often cannot do those things consistently — not because they lack intelligence, but because the system is not taught, and the learning curve is steep under stress.

What this looks like in practice

When LiPs are unsupported, courts see repeat patterns: missed deadlines, misfiled documents, sprawling narratives, under-evidenced allegations, and confusion about what the court is deciding at each stage. These patterns are not random — they are design signals.

3. What courts must do: procedural clarity (not paternalism)

Courts are not powerless. A high-LiP environment requires courts to treat process design as part of justice delivery.

At minimum, courts should publish LiP-aware standards that clearly define:

• core document types (e.g., chronology, statement, position statement, schedule of allegations/concerns where relevant)
• what is needed at each stage (first hearing, directions, fact-finding, final hearing)
• proportionality expectations for evidence and bundles
• how to comply with directions and what happens if parties do not

Judges often explain process in court. The problem is inconsistency, stress, and the lack of a repeatable structure. Written roadmaps and standardised expectations reduce friction for everyone.

4. The regulator’s role: legitimising navigation tools without fear

One of the biggest barriers to LiP-focused legal tech is regulatory uncertainty. Developers and support services are often risk-averse because they fear crossing into “legal advice”.

Regulators can unlock responsible innovation by drawing a clearer line between:

• procedural navigation (what the process is, what documents are, how to organise information, how to comply with directions), and
• legal advice (what someone should do legally, the merits of their case, or how the court is likely to decide).

Navigation support vs legal advice (simple framework)

Usually safe procedural support	Usually crosses into legal advice
Process Explaining stages (e.g., directions → fact-finding → final hearing) Compliance Helping track deadlines and service requirements Organisation Structuring a chronology, index, exhibits, bundle sections Plain English Translating court orders into clear tasks	Merits Advising whether someone should apply/oppose Strategy Recommending what to plead or concede Outcomes Predicting likely judicial findings/results Representation Acting as if solicitor-client duties exist

5. What “LiP-first” legal tech actually looks like

LiP-centred legal tech does not have to be “AI giving legal advice”. The biggest gains come from tools that help people:

• understand where they are in the process
• know what is expected next
• organise information coherently
• comply with directions and deadlines
• present evidence in proportionate, readable form

Simple flow diagram: How LiP-first tools reduce friction

Courts publish clear standardsDocument types, stage-by-stage roadmaps, proportionality, bundle structure.

→

Regulators clarify boundariesNavigation/compliance tools are legitimised; “legal advice” line is explicit.

→

Legal tech designs to the standardGuided workflows: timelines, bundles, checklists, deadlines, plain-English orders.

→

LiPs comply more easilyBetter documents, fewer adjournments, clearer issues, fairer hearings.

This is not about replacing lawyers. It’s about reducing avoidable failure points and making procedure intelligible.

6. Why co-design matters: building with, not for, litigants

The most credible way to improve tools for LiPs is co-design: courts, regulators, practitioners, support services, and litigants all informing the build. Without LiPs at the table, products will keep optimising for the wrong user — and courts will keep absorbing the cost.

7. The cost of doing nothing

When systems ignore their dominant user group, the impact is predictable:

• longer hearings and heavier judicial case management
• more procedural unfairness and inconsistent outcomes
• greater emotional and financial harm (especially in family cases)
• higher public cost through delay and repeat applications

LiP-first design is not only a fairness issue — it is a system efficiency issue.

8. A realistic path forward

Access to justice improves when:

1. Courts set clear procedural standards and publish roadmaps designed for LiP reality.
2. Regulators legitimise navigation and compliance tools, and make boundaries explicit.
3. Legal-tech teams design for human understanding, not just professional efficiency.
4. LiPs are treated as stakeholders in system design, not problems to be managed.

Call to action

If you are a litigant in person struggling with process — or you work in legal tech, policy, or court-facing innovation — this is a space where practical collaboration matters.

JSH Law works at the intersection of family justice, legal process, and responsible AI-assisted navigation, with a focus on making systems intelligible for real people (not just professionals).

• Need help structuring a chronology, bundle, or evidence set?
• Building LiP-centred tools and want practitioner input?
• Want a repeatable workflow that improves compliance and reduces stress?

Get in touch via the contact page

Regulatory & Editorial Notice (JSH Law)
This article is published for general information and public legal education. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Laws, procedural rules, guidance and practice may change. Where this article refers to third-party materials, organisations, or public-interest issues, those references are informational and do not imply endorsement. If you need advice on your specific circumstances, you should obtain independent legal advice from a regulated professional or appropriate support service.