This article examines the challenges posed to judgecraft by litigants in person. It draws on significant empirical evidence from a study conducted by the author in England and Wales demonstrating the challenges posed by litigants in person to judges and the courts. It argues that a central concept behind traditional notions of judging, that of judge as passive arbiter, inhibits fair and effective adjudication. From an analysis of this evidence, it critiques the theoretical foundations of the passive arbiter and suggests an alternative approach to judging be formulated based on principle-based communication, a simpler, more empathetic and cognitively open approach to managing hearings prior to the actual judicial decision.
Albrecht, Rebecca, A., John M. Greacen, Bonnie R. Hough and Richard Zorza (2003) `Judicial Techniques for Cases Involving Self-represented Litigants', The Judges Journal42(1): 16—48.
2.
Andrews, Neil (1995) `The Adversarial Principle: Fairness and Efficiency: Reflections on the Recommendations of the Woolf Report', pp. 176 in A. Zuckerman and R. Cranston (eds) Reform of Civil Procedure: Essays on `Access to Justice '. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 169—185.
3.
Arkes, Hal, Robyn M. Dawes and Caryn Christensen (1988) `Factors Influencing the Use of a Decision Rule in a Probalistic Task', pp. 175 in J. Dowie and A. Elstein (eds) Professional Judgement: A Reader in Clinical Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163—180.
4.
Baldwin, John (1997) Small Claims in County Courts in England and Wales: The Bargain Basement of Civil Justice?Oxford: Clarendon Press.
5.
Blandy, Sarah, Caroline Hunter, Diane Lister, Lisa Naylor and Judy Nixon (2002) Housing Possession Cases in the CountyCourt: The Perceptions and Experiences of Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants. Research series No. 11/02. London: Lord Chancellor's Department.
6.
Court of Appeal (2001) Civil Division: Review of the Legal Year 2000—2001. London : Court Service.
7.
Court of Appeal (2004) Court of Appeal's Review of Legal Year 2002—2003. London : Court Service.
8.
Devlin, Patrick (1979) The Judge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
Dhami, Mandeep K. (2005) `From Discretion to Disagreement: Explaining Disparaties in Judges' Pretrial Decisions', Behavioural Sciences and the Law23: 367—86.
10.
Ellinghaus, Matthew P. and Edward W. Wright (2005) Models of Contract Law: An Empirical Evaluation of Their Utility. Sydney: Federation Press.
11.
Engler, Russell (1999) `And Justice for All, Including the Unrepresented Poor: Revisiting the Roles of the Judges, Mediators, and Clerks', Fordham Law Review67: 1987—2070.
12.
Fuller, Lon (1978) `The Forms and Limits of Adjudication', Harvard Law Review92: 353—409.
13.
Fuller, Lon and John D. Randall (1958) `Professional Responsibility: Report of the Joint Conference of the ABA AALS', American Bar Association Journal44: 1159.
14.
Henderson, Lynn N. (1987) `Legality and Empathy', Michigan Law Review85: 1574—653.
15.
Kennedy, Duncan (1976) `Form and Substance in Private Law Adjudication ', Harvard Law Review89: 1685—1778.
16.
Luban, David (1999) `Reason and Passion in Legal Ethics', Stanford Law Review51: 872—901.
17.
Lucy, William (2005) `The Possibility of Impartiality', Oxford Journal of Legal Studies25: 3—31.
18.
Mather, Lynn (2003) `Changing Patterns of Legal Representation in Divorce: From Lawyers to Pro Se', Journal of Law and Society30: 137—55.
19.
Mitchell, John (2004) `Financial Relief: The Future for Litigants in Person', Family Law34: 30—5.
20.
Molot, Jonathon T. (2003) `An Old Judicial Role for a New Litigation Era ', Yale Law Journal113: 27—118.
21.
Moorhead, Richard (2003) `Access or Aggravation? Litigants in Person, McKenzie Friends and Lay Representation', Civil Justice Quarterly22: 133—55.
22.
Moorhead, Richard and Mark Sefton (2005) Litigants in Person: Unrepresented Litigants in First Instance Proceedings. London: DCA.
23.
Mulcahy, Linda (2001) `The Possibilities and Desirability of Mediator Neutrality: Towards an Ethic of Partiality', Social & Legal Studies10(4): 505—527.
24.
Resnik, Judith (1982—3) `Managerial Judges', Harvard Law Review96: 374—8.
25.
Seron, Carroll, Gregg Van Ryzin and Martin Frankec (2001) `The Impact of Legal Counsel on Outcomes for Poor Tenants in New York City's Housing Court: Results of a Randomized Experiment' , Law & Society Review35(2): 419—34.
26.
Sherr, Avrom (1986) `Lawyers and Clients: The First Meeting', Modern Law Review49: 323—57.
27.
Smart, Carol and Vanessa May (2006) Residence and Contact Disputes in Court. London: DCA.
28.
Thibaut, John and Laurens Walker (1978) `A Theory of Procedure', California Law Review66: 541—66.
29.
Tyler, Tom (1990) Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
Zorza, Richard (2004) `The Disconnect Between the Requirements of Judicial Neutrality and Those of the Appearance of Neutrality when Parties Appear Pro Se: Causes, Solutions, Recommendations, and Implications', Georgetown Journal of LegalEthics17: 423—452.
