Written by It is time to confront an uncomfortable truth: why do some legal professionals bend the rules, and what can we do to stop it?
The Culture of Rule-Bending
Many within the British legal system are all too familiar with an unfortunate reality: some solicitors and barristers employ tactics that manipulate procedural nuances, thereby undermining the principles of justice. These practices, though profoundly unethical, frequently go unchecked. What drives these legal professionals to push ethical boundaries, and why are they so often able to evade consequences?
At the heart of this issue lies an entrenched culture that implicitly condones bending the rules. Legal practitioners feel emboldened to distort facts or exploit procedural technicalities simply because they can. In many instances, the judiciary affords represented parties the benefit of the doubt, while litigants in person (LiPs) are systematically disadvantaged—perceived as lacking credibility, competence, or even legitimacy. This asymmetry provides fertile ground for those with legal representation to exploit procedural manoeuvres without fear of meaningful repercussions.
The Tactic of Late Filings
One of the most notorious tactics is the strategic use of late filings. It is both infuriating and common to witness opposing solicitors submitting crucial documents at the eleventh hour, immediately prior to a hearing. These submissions are often justified with unconvincing explanations, such as “unexpected technical issues” or “unforeseen scheduling conflicts.” The truth is that these delays are frequently deliberate, designed to destabilise the opposing party by limiting their time to respond effectively. Such tactics are not about the pursuit of justice—they are about gaining an unfair advantage.
In any other form of competition, hitting an opponent before the designated start would be grounds for disqualification. In a boxing ring, such behaviour is viewed as an act of desperation and poor sportsmanship. Yet, in the legal arena, such conduct is not only permitted but often considered routine. Why? Because lawyers are accustomed to operating without consequence. Exploiting procedural loopholes has become so pervasive that many no longer see it as ethically dubious. Worse still, judicial responses are rarely sufficient to deter such behaviour, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), charged with upholding professional standards, is conspicuously absent when genuine grievances are raised.
Judicial Bias and Systemic Accountability
The judiciary cannot be entirely absolved of responsibility. While judicial impartiality is a cornerstone of the system, it is evident that represented individuals often wield undue influence. A barrister’s title and the appearance of polished professionalism can significantly shape judicial perception. Judges, being human, are susceptible to influence—whether it stems from prestige, authority, or the pressures of managing court efficiency. In such an environment, LiPs—lacking formal training and professional standing—are frequently dismissed as lacking credibility, and their legitimate complaints about procedural manipulation are often overlooked.
Systemic deficiencies in accountability further exacerbate this problem. The SRA, tasked with ensuring solicitors adhere to ethical conduct, has a well-documented history of inaction. Even when compelling evidence of breaches exists, meaningful intervention is seldom forthcoming. This systemic inertia implicitly signals to solicitors that bending the rules is permissible because oversight is lax at best.
What Can Be Done?
Despite these entrenched practices, there are avenues for those willing to challenge the status quo. One effective strategy is to proactively seek judicial orders that promote procedural fairness. For instance, formally outlining to the court the underhanded tactics of opposing counsel can lead to preemptive orders, requiring all documents to be submitted well in advance of hearings. Such measures help restore procedural equity and prevent ambush tactics from being used to create an unfair advantage.
Litigants representing themselves must be vigilant and aware of their rights to demand fair treatment. Address the court formally and articulate how these tactics undermine justice. If well-presented, such arguments can resonate with the judiciary, compelling action to ensure a fairer process.
The Need for Integrity
The pursuit of justice must be built on honesty and transparency. It is disheartening that we must actively fight for these values within a system designed to protect them. Yet, such a fight is essential. The more we expose these manipulative practices, the closer we come to a justice system that genuinely serves everyone—not just the well-represented elite.
Join the Discussion
Have you witnessed or experienced similar tactics in the UK legal system? What are your thoughts on how we can foster greater accountability and integrity within the profession? Let’s connect and discuss ways we can advocate for meaningful change in our justice system.
#Justice #LegalReform #LitigantsInPerson #LegalAccountability #UKLaw #Fairness #AccessToJustice
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article reflect common observations regarding the practices of some legal professionals within the UK justice system. This piece is not intended to generalise all solicitors and barristers, nor is it legal advice. For personalised legal guidance, please consult a qualified professional.