The training of both judges and lawyers must change to suit a new, hybrid justice system

The recent reforms to '¨legal aid and the rules governing civil and family procedure, and the moves towards the creation of the single family court have combined to exercise the law '¨of unintended consequences like never before.

Not only are the changes resulting in an exponential increase in the number of litigants in person in our courts, they are also necessitating a substantial shift in our civil and family justice system.

In England and Wales, the justice system has long been regarded as a prime example '¨of an adversarial system of law '¨in action. But significant inquisitorial changes are afoot, transforming the traditional system into hybrid of the two.

In fact, the changes are not altogether unintentional. Indeed, if proof of the movement towards a more inquisitorial approach was needed, it can be found in a lecture entitled 'Talking about reform' delivered in June '¨2012 by Mr Justice Ryder (as he was then).

He said: "In addition, we hope to publish a statement of inquisitorial principle. We aim '¨to demonstrate and assist everyone to understand that, save in relation to adversarial fact finding sufficient to make the ultimate decision before '¨the court, the judge's function '¨is inquisitorial. The judge is in control and the judge decides what is to be determined, what is the evidence that is necessary for that decision to be made '¨and how it is to be tested before the court."

These developments have potentially far-reaching consequences for the legal professions and for those who prepare aspiring lawyers for qualification. On one level, a more hybrid system would mean fewer advocates are likely to appear before the courts. Also, '¨in general, the role that lawyers play within the justice system will need to adjust and many who appear before the courts would have to change radically to meet the requirements of '¨the new order.

Such changes present challenges but there are also opportunities particularly in relation to the training of lawyers and the judiciary. New case management skills need to be acquired quickly and a different mindset for handling cases, involving a focused investigative search for the truth as opposed to a neutral evaluation of the presented evidence assembled with minimal judicial input.

It may be argued that lawyers and judges in an adversarial system are better equipped to acquire inquisitorial skills than their counterparts seeking to make the transition in the opposite direction. Dealing with cases on the small claims track in the county courts has provided district judges with valuable experience of the inquisitorial process and the groundwork for applying their inquisitorial skills more widely. Employing those same principles on the fast and multi-tracks, and to a greater extent in the family court, is a more daunting prospect. All the more so when many such cases will continue to involve some trained lawyers who are anxious to apply their adversarial skills.

There is undoubtedly an urgent need for those involved in the training of lawyers and judges to revise their methods to meet the new challenges. For those involved in the evolution of practice and procedure, it is time to begin grappling with the need to mould and create a hybrid fit for purpose. SJ