Enemies of the people or staunch defenders of the rule of law? How we talk about law and lawyers really matters if we hope to build support for a well-funded, independent justice system. Tamsyn Hyatt and Kate Stanley outline the work FrameWorks UK is undertaking for the Law Society, which aims to help shape future public and political debate.
There are two big but conflicting stories currently being told about law and justice in England and Wales. Put simply, the first story is this: ‘lefty lawyers’ and ‘enemies of the people’ are frustrating the will of parliament and endangering the national interest. The second story is this: the behaviour of some ministers is undermining the rule of law, and cuts to funding over many years have pushed the justice system to breaking point.
Which story – which way of seeing the world – dominates public conversations and political priorities in the years to come will depend on how well that story is framed.
At
FrameWorks UK, we’re working with
the Law Society to make sure the second story is framed as well as it can be – based on rigorous evidence of what works. FrameWorks UK is a not-for-profit research organisation that specialises in how to frame important issues from vaccination to homelessness, health inequality to care experience.
Together with the Law Society, its members and others in the field of law and justice, we’re working to understand how people across England and Wales think about the rule of law and access to justice, and to identify the narratives and frames that can build public support for a well-resourced, well-respected and truly independent justice system.
We’re doing this work because how we talk about law and justice in England and Wales matters. The ideas we share – and how we share them – shape how our actions, our clients and our profession is seen and understood.
How people think about the rule of law and access to justice
In 2023, we conducted extensive research with more than 1,400 people across England and Wales. First, we asked experts from the fields of law and justice to tell us the most important things that needed to be understood about the rule of law and access to justice in England and Wales today. In summary, this is what they said:
•The rule of law and access to justice ensure equality before the law.
•They underpin our social, political and economic systems.
•Government action has weakened the rule of law and access to justice.
•Change is needed across policy and practice to strengthen the rule of law and improve access to justice – like increasing the funding and scope of legal aid, investing in legal services and building political buy-in.
So, if this is what we want to be understood, how are we doing?
We’ve identified the mindsets people hold on these issues.
Mindsets are more than people’s surface attitudes or opinions. They are the deep, assumed patterns of thinking that shape how we see the world and how we act within it. Mindsets either normalise or problematise our existing social order and are triggered whenever we hear or see a communication. This could be anything from a post on social media to a radio interview or something said to clients. When we understand mindsets, our communications can build on more productive ways of thinking, and avoid those that are likely to form obstacles to understanding and support.
Some of the mindsets we found present serious obstacles, though we also found reasons to be hopeful. Some of the dominant mindsets are:
•The rule of law exists to prevent social chaos.
•Justice is about controlling and punishing crime.
•Our rule of law and access to justice are under threat from multiculturalism, moral decline and social inequalities.
•Wealth shapes access to justice.
Social chaos and social harmony
Let’s look more closely at the first item of the list above, the ‘social chaos’ mindset. This often guides thinking about what the rule of law is for. Its central assumptions are:
Without laws, society would fall into disorder and confusion. Humans are naturally independent and self-interested, and so need organisation and rules to function well in community.
When this mindset is active, people reason that the rule of law is the only thing standing between society and chaos.
This ‘social chaos’ mindset can also be seen at work in tensions between how experts in the field of law and justice and the wider public understand the rule of law and access to justice. For example, experts in the field focus on what the rule of law and access to justice make possible, as ideas and practices that underpin and balance our social, political and economic systems. In contrast, the wider public focus on what the rule of law and access to justice prevent: they are seen as things that hold back chaos and disorder. While there is, of course, value in this model of preventing chaos, it makes it harder for people to see the active role of the rule of law and access to justice in everyday life – and so what is needed to maintain and strengthen both.
There is, however, an alternative, less dominant mindset that offers us a stronger basis for building support. We can think of this as the ‘social harmony’ mindset, with these central assumptions:
Law is essentially good and so striving for its realisation makes society fairer, safer, and happier. When functioning properly, the rule of law and access to justice create a more harmonious, unified society.
When this mindset is active, people reason that the rule of law and access to justice can, and should, bring balance to society. When people draw on a ‘social harmony’ mindset, they are:
•more likely to recognise the role of lawyers in upholding the rule of law and ensuring access to justice;
•more likely to hold the idea that there should be a level playing field in society; and
•slightly more likely to recognise the existence of structural racism.
Notably, in our research, people who had used a solicitor (58 per cent of our sample) endorsed the ‘social harmony’ mindset significantly more than those who had not. In the next phase of research, we’ll explore how to push back the idea of social chaos and engage the idea of social harmony.
Multiculturalism and class power
One of the most striking mindsets that we identified was the idea that the rule of law and access to justice are under threat from other cultures. This ‘threat of multiculturalism’ mindset runs like this:
The rule of law and justice are fundamentally British (tied to nationalist ideas about race and immigration). Multiculturalism is a threat to the existing social order, and the rule of law and justice will not function as it should in a multicultural society.
When this mindset is active, people assume that others who are not white, not Christian or not born in the UK hold different values and have a fundamentally different relationship with justice and the rule of law.
When people draw on a ‘threat of multiculturalism’ mindset, they are:
•very likely to also hold authoritarian, anti-immigrant and/or racist views; and
•slightly less likely to agree that government is responsible for ensuring access to justice or that government should abide by the rule of law.
But again, an alternative, more productive mindset is available – and is frequently held by the same people holding a ‘threat of multiculturalism’ mindset. This mindset is centred on class power and privilege, and runs like this:
Social class determines access to the justice system and how the rule of law is applied in practice.
When this mindset is active, people reason that class influences our ability to retain a lawyer, our relationship to police, and how we’re seen (publicly and institutionally) throughout the legal process.
When people draw on a ’class power and privilege’ mindset, they are:
•more likely to hold the idea that fairness (as it relates to law and justice) means a level playing field;
•more likely to recognise that government is responsible for maintaining the rule of law and improving access to justice;
•more likely to recognise the role of money in the justice system; and
•slightly less likely to hold racist views.
This ’class power and privilege’ mindset presents openings for communicators, and we want to explore the best ways to engage it in the next phase of research.
Initial insights about how to talk to win hearts and minds for change
Our initial research suggests some rules of thumb for communicating about the rule of law and access to justice:
•First, talk about what the rule of law and access to justice make possible, and not just what they prevent.
•Focus on the ability of the law and justice to create shared good, and not just retribution for specific harms.
•Provide clear, consistent and light-touch definitions of the rule of law and what we mean by access to justice, using concrete examples.
•Balance talk of crisis in lawmaking and the legal and justice system with talk of agency and solutions.
What next?
In the next phase of research, which started this spring, we’ll be testing a range of communications strategies to find out what works best to build understanding of the rule of law and access to justice. We’ll identify the frames that help us to bridge the gaps between expert understanding and public mindsets. And crucially, we’ll test which ways of talking strengthen public support and create political will to improve access to justice and uphold the rule of law. We’ll share our findings in Legal Action.