Gaslighting in the Courts: How Legal Professionals May Undermine LiPs

Recent data from the Ministry of Justice reveals a significant increase in the number of individuals representing themselves in UK courts, particularly in family law cases. In 2022, over 50% of parties in family court cases were unrepresented, underscoring the growing trend of Litigants in Person (LiPs). This shift has brought to light the unique challenges these individuals face in navigating a complex and often adversarial legal system.

LiPs, lacking formal legal training, must contend with the procedural intricacies of the court process, which can be daunting and overwhelming. Recognising these challenges, the Ministry of Justice has launched several initiatives, including the Legal Support for Litigants in Person (LSLIP) grant. This programme funds various projects aimed at providing legal advice, practical support, and procedural guidance to LiPs across England and Wales.

While many legal professionals maintain high ethical standards, there are concerns about some engaging in manipulative tactics against LiPs, such as gaslighting—a form of psychological manipulation. Identifying and responding to such behaviours is crucial for LiPs to effectively safeguard their interests. Support from resources like Citizens Advice, legal aid organisations, and pro bono services is essential in helping LiPs navigate these challenges.

The Ministry of Justice’s initiatives are designed to provide earlier interventions and comprehensive support, aiming to level the playing field for self-represented litigants.

Understanding Gaslighting in Legal Contexts

Gaslighting, a term derived from a 1930s play and popularised by the 1944 film “Gaslight”, refers to a form of psychological manipulation where the perpetrator aims to make the victim doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity. In legal settings, this manipulation can significantly impact Litigants in Person (LiPs), particularly due to their lack of formal legal training and understanding of complex legal procedures. Here’s how gaslighting can manifest in legal contexts:

Dismissing Valid Concerns

Legal professionals might dismiss legitimate issues raised by LiPs using phrases such as, “You’re overreacting,” or “This matter is not pertinent to the case.” This tactic can undermine the LiP’s confidence in their case and make them doubt the validity of their own concerns.

Questioning Memory and Understanding

Lawyers might say, “That is not what transpired during the hearing,” or “You have misinterpreted the judge’s ruling,” to cause LiPs to doubt their recollection of events. This can create confusion and destabilise the LiP’s understanding of the case.

Withholding Critical Information

Legal counsel may withhold important details, later claiming, “We covered that previously,” or “It was your responsibility to be aware of that information.” This selective omission can place LiPs at a significant disadvantage by keeping them uninformed about crucial aspects of their case.

Shifting Blame

When complications arise, a lawyer might assert, “This issue arose because you failed to provide the necessary documentation,” even if the LiP had supplied all required information. This tactic shifts responsibility onto the LiP, causing them to question their own actions and accuracy.

Minimising Serious Issues

Phrases like, “This is not a significant issue,” or “You are exaggerating the problem,” are used to downplay serious legal matters. Such minimisation can discourage LiPs from pursuing important elements of their case, leading them to believe their concerns are unwarranted.

These manipulative tactics exploit the vulnerabilities of those unfamiliar with legal procedures, making it imperative for LiPs to recognise these behaviours. Support from resources such as Citizens Advice and other legal aid organisations can provide critical assistance. Additionally, documenting all interactions and seeking support from trusted individuals can help counteract the effects of gaslighting.

Recognising and addressing gaslighting in legal contexts is crucial for ensuring fair treatment and justice for Litigants in Person. Legal frameworks and court systems are beginning to acknowledge these forms of psychological manipulation, as evidenced by recent judgments in the UK family courts.

The Impact on Access to Justice

The use of gaslighting tactics against LiPs can have serious implications for access to justice:

Erosion of Confidence: Constant undermining can shake a LiP’s belief in their ability to represent themselves effectively.
Missed Opportunities: LiPs may fail to pursue valid legal arguments or remedies if convinced their concerns are insignificant.
Unfair Settlements: Gaslighting can pressure LiPs into accepting unfavourable terms, believing they have no better options.
Abandonment of Valid Claims: In extreme cases, LiPs might abandon legitimate legal claims altogether, feeling overwhelmed and incapable.

These outcomes directly contradict the principles of open justice and fairness that underpin the UK legal system. As highlighted in “Digital Divide: Are Litigants in Person Getting Equal Access to Justice?”, LiPs already face significant hurdles in navigating digital court systems. Psychological manipulation only widens this gap.

Dr. Natalie Byrom, Director of Research at The Legal Education Foundation, comments: “The power imbalance between represented parties and LiPs can be stark. When this is exploited through manipulative tactics, it fundamentally undermines the principle of equality before the law.”

Recognising and Responding to Gaslighting

For LiPs facing potential gaslighting, awareness and preparation are key:

Trust Your Instincts: If something feels wrong or unfair, it likely is. Don’t dismiss your own perceptions.
Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all interactions, including dates, times, and what was said. This creates an objective record to reference.
Seek Second Opinions: Consult with legal advisors, support services, or trusted friends to validate your concerns.
Know Your Rights: Familiarise yourself with court procedures and your rights as a LiP. Knowledge is power.
Stay Calm and Professional: Respond to manipulative tactics with composure, focusing on facts and evidence.
Report Unethical Behaviour: If you believe a legal professional is acting unethically, consider reporting them to the relevant regulatory body, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) or Bar Standards Board (BSB).

Support Resources for LiPs

Fortunately, LiPs in the UK have access to various support services:

Support Through Court (formerly Personal Support Unit): Provides practical and emotional support to LiPs in courts across England and Wales.
Citizens Advice Bureau: Offers free, independent advice on legal matters and court procedures.
LawWorks: Connects individuals with pro bono (free) legal advice and representation.
The Bar Pro Bono Unit: Facilitates free legal assistance from barristers for those who cannot afford representation.

Conclusion

While gaslighting tactics can be deeply unsettling for LiPs, understanding and recognising these behaviours is the first step in countering their effects. By staying informed, documenting interactions, and seeking support when needed, LiPs can better protect their rights and pursue justice effectively.

The legal community must also address this issue. As explored in “The Ethics of Narrative Manipulation in Legal Practice: Lessons from the Burnetts Solicitors Case,” legal professionals have an ethical obligation to uphold the integrity of the justice system. This includes treating LiPs with respect and refraining from manipulative tactics that undermine the principles of fairness and equal access to justice.

Both solicitors and barristers in the UK are bound by Professional Conduct Rules set out by their respective regulatory bodies. These rules explicitly prohibit behaviours that could mislead or take unfair advantage of third parties, including LiPs.

As we continue to navigate the evolving landscape of self-representation in UK courts, we must work towards a legal system that empowers and supports LiPs, rather than one that allows for their manipulation and disempowerment. The recent case of Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23 highlighted the importance of fair treatment for LiPs, with the Supreme Court emphasising the need for judges to ensure LiPs are not placed at an unfair disadvantage.

By raising awareness of these issues and promoting ethical practices, we can strive for a more equitable and accessible justice system for all.

#LitigantsinPerson #UKLaw #AccesstoJustice #LegalEthics #Gaslighting #SelfRepresentation #CourtReform #UKJusticeSystem

References

Ministry of Justice. (2023). Family Court Statistics Quarterly: January to March 2023. Available at GOV.UK
Supreme Court. (2020). Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2020] UKSC 23. Available at Supreme Court Judgments
Solicitors Regulation Authority. (2023). SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs. Available at SRA
Barwell, J. (2024, July 23). Digital Divide: Are Litigants in Person Getting Equal Access to Justice? LinkedIn. Available at LinkedIn
Barwell, J. (2024, July 10). The Ethics of Narrative Manipulation in Legal Practice: Lessons from the Burnetts Solicitors Case. LinkedIn. Available at LinkedIn
Barwell, J. (2024, June 12). The Psychological Toll of Legal Battles: A Litigant in Person’s Journey. LinkedIn. Available at LinkedIn
Barwell, J. (2024, July 24). The Digital Divide in UK Courts: Navigating System Access as a Litigant in Person (LiP). LinkedIn. Available at LinkedIn
HM Courts & Tribunals Service. (2021). HMCTS Reform Programme. GOV.UK. Available at GOV.UK
The Legal Education Foundation. (2023). Digital Justice: HMCTS Data Strategy and Delivering Access to Justice. Available at HMCTS
Citizens Advice. (2024). Going to court without a solicitor. Available at Citizen Advice
LawWorks. (2024). Free Legal Answers. Available at LawWorks
Advocate (formerly Bar Pro Bono Unit). (2024). Available at Advocate

Public Interest Disclosure Statement

This statement outlines the principles guiding disclosures made in my articles, which aim to serve the public interest by promoting transparency and accountability.

Guiding Principles

Public Interest: Disclosures are made to serve the public interest, inspired by the principles underlying the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
Ethical Reporting: I strive to adhere to ethical reporting practices to the best of my ability as a non-professional writer.
Factual Accuracy: All information disclosed is factual and evidence-based to the best of my knowledge.
Good Faith: Disclosures are made without malice and with a genuine belief in their truth and public importance.
Proportionality: The extent of disclosure is proportionate to the perceived wrongdoing or risk.
Confidentiality: Sources and sensitive information are protected where appropriate.

Legal Considerations

Disclosures are made with consideration of:

Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR: Personal data is processed in compliance with data protection principles.
Defamation Act 2013:Truth: Factual statements are true to the best of my knowledge.Honest Opinion: Opinions are clearly identified and based on facts.Public Interest: Publication is believed to be in the public interest.
Human Rights Act 1998: Disclosures exercise the right to freedom of expression, balanced against other rights.

Ethical Standards

While not a professional journalist, I strive to maintain high ethical standards in my reporting, including:

Verifying information to the best of my ability.
Seeking comment from those involved where possible.
Being transparent about my methods and limitations.

Disclaimer

This statement does not claim legal protections specific to employee whistleblowers or professional journalists. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy and ethical compliance, this is not legal advice. I am not a legal professional or a qualified journalist. Legal and ethical advice will be sought in cases of uncertainty.

By adhering to these principles, I aim to make responsible disclosures that serve the public interest while respecting legal and ethical obligations.