This is the report of a study of the views of clients on the services offered in a pilot project to provide advice to litigants in person (LIPs). The pilot project was set up following a recommendation of the Working Party established by the Judges' Council under Lord Justice Otton in 1995 and was based at the Citizens Advice Bureau located within the Royal Courts of Justice (the CAB at the RCJ). Its purpose was to provide LIPs with advice on court procedure, whether the merits of their case justified proceeding and preparation of their case for court. It was also hoped that the advice provided would help to reduce the demands made by LIPs on the time of judges and court staff.
The aims of the study were:
to discover how LIPs find out about the service provided by the CAB at the RCJ
to determine the reasons why LIPs approach the CAB
to establish their understanding of the nature of advice provided and whether this corresponds with what is recorded on the form completed by CAB staff
to discover the result of the consultation (e.g. whether the information sought was actually provided, clients' subsequent action and whether this corresponded with advice given)
to establish clients' level of satisfaction with the service provided
to consider whether there are benefits to the civil justice system as a result of the advice provided by the CAB and to describe the nature of such benefits.
In consultation with the LCD, a questionnaire was prepared and circulated by post to 410 clients who had used the services provided in the pilot between January and November 1997. Of these, 160 completed questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 39.4 per cent. The main points that emerged from an analysis of these responses were as follows:
Nineteen per cent of respondents said English was not their first language.
One in three had heard about the services of the CAB at the RCJ from court staff. Only 17% had been referred by another CAB or advice agency.
Seventy-seven per cent had sought advice from another source prior to approaching the CAB at the RCJ but only 61% sought other advice afterwards.
Seventy-six per cent had contacted the CAB at the RCJ more than once in the last year. Twenty-nine per cent on had been in contact more than five times.
Three-quarters of clients approached the CAB at the RCJ for advice on court procedure. Fifty-six per cent said they could not afford the services of a lawyer.
One quarter wanted advice on whether to consult a lawyer while 23% wanted to check on advice they had already received from a lawyer.
Fifty-five per cent said that staff at the CAB at the RCJ had answered all their questions and 58% were completely satisfied with the service they received. Only six per cent said that none of their questions had been answered and nine per cent that they were not at all satisfied with the service.
The greatest number of complaints from the minority who were not satisfied related to the length of waiting times and the lack of an appointments system. Other complaints referred to the quality of legal advice, inconsistent advice on different occasions, limitations set on the extent of advice given, loss of client files and dissatisfaction with firms of lawyers to which the client had been referred.
Fifty-eight per cent of clients had been given settlement advice. Two-thirds of these had been advised to continue with their dispute. Most followed the advice but advice to settle was more likely to be ignored than advice to continue.
Based on these findings, the report recommends that:
Checks should be made to ensure that local CABx and other advice agencies are aware of the services offered to LIPs by the CAB at the RCJ and more prominent signs are posted outside the CAB's office within the RCJ.
Client waiting times at open-door sessions at the CAB at the RCJ should be monitored and an experimental appointments system should be introduced.
There should be closer scrutiny of whether workers are giving legal advice in situations that merit referral to an honorary legal adviser (HLA) and monitoring of advice provided by HLAs.
Staff should check whether their advice differs from that given on a previous occasion and, where this occurs, explain to the client of the reasons for the change.
Where a decision is made to offer no further advice to a client, this should require the signed authority of a senior member of CAB at the RCJ staff.
Management reviews should address the adequacy of document controls used by the CAB at the RCJ with particular attention to the incidence of lost files.
The CAB at the RCJ should consider maintaining information about the quality of the services provided by the firms of solicitors to which it refers clients.
The leaflet describing the services of the CAB at the RCJ should be revised to describe the limitations of the services offered. The leaflet should be given to everyone who attends a consultation with a worker and included in responses to postal requests for advice.
The CAB at the RCJ should record the first language of those to whom it gives advice. Based on the results, consideration should be given to translating information leaflets into languages other than English. The ability of HLAs to offer advice in languages other than English should be recorded and available to workers when making a referral on behalf of a client.
Thank you for the interest you have shown in the Research Series. For further information or copies of reports published in the Series please contact the following address:
Lord Chancellor's Department
Research Secretariat
5th Floor, Selborne House
54/60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
United Kingdom
Tel: 0171-210 8520
Fax: 0171-210 0695
E-mail:enquiries.lcdhq@gtnet.gov.uk