On Tuesday 24 March 2026, friends, family and LSBU students joined us to celebrate our sorely missed colleague, Jess. Just as we did last year, we heard so much about the impact she had on those around her – our hope is that the students in the room will have heard Jess’ story and felt inspired to pursue a career in family law to help others, just as she did.
The evening’s subject ‘access to justice, neurodiversity and tackling marginalisation in the family justice system’ prompted interesting discussion on the positive steps being made in the family court.
Although there is still much to do, it is encouraging to know that we are progressing towards a system that supports all types of clients and professionals’ ways of working.
This year’s essay competition asked LSBU students to submit an essay on answering the following:
Access to Justice is the cornerstone of a civilized society. The cuts to legal aid have resulted in a 2 tier system denying fundamental rights to those who cannot afford to pay for them. Discuss.
This year’s essay competition was won by Olivia Gavin for her fantastic entry which can be read in full below:
Access to justice is often regarded as one of the most fundamental principles of a fair and democratic legal system. Its purpose is to ensure that everyone has access to justice, regardless of their background or circumstances. However, this principle becomes meaningless if people cannot afford legal representation. The introduction of legal aid in the UK was intended to address this problem; however, significant reductions in funding in recent years have raised concerns that the justice system now operates as a two-tier system, where access to justice depends largely on an individual’s financial resources.
An essential purpose of the legal system is to ensure justice. This means that individuals must be able to access courts, obtain legal advice, and challenge decisions that affect their rights and livelihood. Legal aid was introduced to ensure that justice was not limited to those privileged enough to afford it. The Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 represented a major development in the UK legal system. The Act aimed to provide legal support to all citizens regardless of their financial situation, reflecting the idea that the law should be accessible to everyone. By providing publicly funded legal advice and representation, the Act sought to remove financial barriers, reflecting an idealistic vision of justice as a public good rather than a private commodity.
However, the legal aid system has undergone significant changes. The most substantial reductions came with the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This legislation removed legal aid funding from large areas of civil law, including many family law and housing matters. As a result, many individuals are now unable to obtain legal representation for important issues that affect their lives. This fundamentally weakens the ability of individuals to protect their rights. The law may technically remain available, but without legal assistance, it becomes inaccessible for many people.
One major consequence of the reductions in legal aid has been a significant increase in the number of individuals who cannot afford legal representation, forced to represent themselves in court proceedings. While individuals have the right to self-representation, the legal system is complex and difficult for non-lawyers to navigate. This often leads to unfair outcomes, as individuals without legal knowledge may struggle to present their cases effectively or understand legal procedures. Judges are also placed in a difficult position, as they must balance maintaining neutrality with assisting unrepresented parties. This has also created practical problems for the court system. Self-represented cases often take longer to resolve as judges must explain procedures and ensure that the parties understand the process. This results in delays across the justice system. These delays increase costs and contribute to systemic inefficiencies, further placing pressure on already limited court resources. As a result, the cuts intended to reduce public spending not only affect individuals seeking justice but also impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the legal system as a whole.
Furthermore, the cuts to legal aid have disproportionately affected minority groups. Research suggests that individuals from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds are more likely to experience legal issues in areas such as immigration, asylum and housing. These are areas where legal aid funding has been significantly reduced, creating greater barriers to accessing legal assistance for these individuals who may need it. Therefore, preventing access to these fundamental rights, due to lack of funds clearly demonstrates a two-tiered system.
In conclusion, access to justice is a fundamental component of a fair legal system. The creation of legal aid embodied the principle that legal support was available to all, regardless of wealth. However, the significant reductions introduced by the 2012 Act have created substantial barriers to legal assistance in many areas of law. These changes have led to an increase in self-represented litigants, greater strain on the courts, and disproportionate disadvantages for vulnerable communities. While the justice system continues to operate, the growing divide between those who can afford legal representation and those who cannot provides strong support for the argument that legal aid cuts have contributed to the emergence of a two-tier system of justice. Ultimately, if access to justice becomes dependent on wealth, the very foundation of the rule of law is placed at risk
We are constantly working to make our society a fairer place by campaigning for changes to make the family justice system fairer and more accessible to everyone who needs it.
Our vision is to continue to provide an excellent legal service to our clients but also to help shape the future of family law.
Recent Comments