The foundation’s director professor Nigel Balmer said: “These findings on accessibility of courts and lawyers show that there will be significant benefit for the justice system and the legal profession in increasing transparency and understanding and addressing negative perceptions of fairness and accessibility.”

Courts were typically regarded as inaccessible due to them being complex, expensive, slow and hard to understand. More than 70 per cent said they were not confident with going to court and more than 80 per cent said it was not designed for ordinary people.

Lawyers scored more positively, but were considered too expensive, slow, intimidating and used too much complicated and technical language, cutting out potential clients.

The report said it is an opportunity for courts and lawyers to improve transparency and perceptions, which could include outreach, non-legal brandings, in-court programs, as well as transparent communication and covering clear pricing.

Accessibility depended largely on perceptions, both first-hand and second-hand. More positive experiences would lead to respondents viewing the system as more available.

“If you have had a positive experience with a lawyer, you were more likely to see them as accessible, however the reverse was also true,” the report noted.

“Negative experience with lawyers related to a strong perception that they were less accessible. Similarly, those who were reporting experience of unfair court processes saw lawyers as significantly less accessible.”

VIEW ALL

Personal experience of courts and lawyers were generally more uncommon, but more positive while second-hand accounts were more common, but perceived negatively. The report said both strongly related to how people viewed accessibility.

“Those who had personally attended/contacted court, and particularly those who felt the process was fair, perceived courts as more accessible. Similarly, those who used lawyers and had been satisfied with the help saw courts as more accessible,” it said.

“Those exposed to negative second-hand or anecdotal accounts demonstrated lower perception of their accessibility, while exposure to positive anecdotal accounts [was] associated with particularly large increases in perceptions of accessibility.”

Mental health was also seen as a barrier, particularly severe mental illness, as “both courts and lawyers were seen as significantly less accessible than other respondents.”

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.