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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.