This category covers the key considerations and practical steps to take before making an application to the family court. It addresses pre-application requirements, early decision-making, and alternatives to court where appropriate.

Articles here are designed to help litigants in person understand when court proceedings may be necessary, what preparation is required, and how early choices can affect safeguarding, case management, and outcomes later in the process.

Have You Ever Paid for a Court Transcript — and How Much Did It Cost You?

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Have you ever tried to get a transcript of your own court hearing — and been told it could cost hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds? Most litigants in person don’t even realise transcripts aren’t automatically provided, let alone that access to the full record of what was said in their case sits behind a paywall. Yet that record can be the difference between a successful appeal and a dead end. With Parliament now debating whether court transcripts should be free, it raises a simple but uncomfortable question: should access to justice depend on your ability to pay for it?

Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • You are entitled to a written court order or judgment — but this is NOT the same as a full transcript.
  • Transcripts can cost hundreds or thousands of pounds — creating a real barrier to appeals.
  • You can request transcripts using Form EX107 (and EX107H for sentencing remarks).
  • Part of the judge’s reasoning may appear in the order — but often crucial detail is missing.
  • If the other side drafts the order, it may not fully reflect what happened in court.

Have You Ever Paid for a Court Transcript — and How Much Did It Cost You?

This is not a theoretical question. It is a real, pressing issue for thousands of litigants in person across England and Wales.

A recent UK Parliament petition — “Make all court and tribunal transcripts available free of charge” — has brought the issue sharply into focus.

With over 200,000 signatures, it has now been debated in Parliament. The message from the public is clear:

Justice should not come with a price tag.

Why This Matters (Especially for Litigants in Person)

If you are representing yourself, your case does not end when you walk out of court.

What matters — often critically — is:

  • What the judge actually said
  • How findings were made
  • What reasoning underpins the decision

And here is the problem:

You usually don’t have access to that — unless you pay.

Transcripts are not automatically provided. In many cases, they must be:

  • Requested
  • Approved
  • Prepared by a transcription service
  • Paid for in advance

Costs can run into the hundreds or even thousands of pounds.

“But I Got a Court Order — Isn’t That Enough?”

No — and this is where many litigants in person are caught out.

The court order:

  • Summarises the outcome
  • May include limited reasoning
  • Is often drafted by one party’s legal representative

It does not capture:

  • The full judicial reasoning
  • Oral findings made during the hearing
  • Judicial comments on credibility or evidence

In practice, this means:

Key parts of your case may exist only in the courtroom — and nowhere else.

That becomes a serious problem if you need to:

  • Appeal
  • Challenge findings
  • Correct inaccuracies in an order

The Reality: A Paywall on Justice

The petition describes it plainly — and accurately:

A “paywall” for justice.

If you cannot afford a transcript, you are effectively locked out of:

  • Proper appellate review
  • Accountability of judicial reasoning
  • A complete record of your own case

For represented parties, this cost may be absorbed into legal fees.

For litigants in person, it is often prohibitive.

The Government’s Response (March 2026)

The Government has acknowledged the issue — but stopped short of committing to free transcripts.

Government Response (3 March 2026):

The Government is committed to strengthening transparency across the justice system and is already taking significant steps across all jurisdictions.

In the Crown Court, sentencing remarks are now published online in cases of significant public interest, and judges can also permit broadcasters to film Crown Court sentencing remarks, ensuring greater public visibility of judicial decisions. Victims of rape and serious sexual offences and bereaved families of victims of homicide, manslaughter and fatal road accidents are already entitled to free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks.

These can be requested here: Apply for a transcript of a judge’s sentencing remarks: Form EX107H .

From Spring 2027, the Government is expanding free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks to all victims, ensuring these remarks are provided in time to support any application to the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme.

In the family court, the Government is supporting increased publication of anonymised judgments and implementing Transparency Orders (effective 29 September 2025 for children’s cases).

In civil proceedings, parties already receive the written order or judgment without charge.

In tribunal proceedings, decisions and reasons are generally provided free of charge, with fuller reasons available on request in many cases.

However, the Government states that making all transcripts free would create significant financial and operational pressure. Producing transcripts is resource-intensive and requires careful quality assurance and compliance with reporting restrictions.

The Ministry of Justice is exploring the use of AI to produce transcripts more quickly and cost-effectively while maintaining accuracy and safeguarding standards.

Ministry of Justice

What This Means in Practice

The Government’s position is clear:

  • Transparency is increasing — but incrementally
  • Full free access to transcripts is not currently viable

That leaves litigants in person in a difficult position:

You are expected to navigate appeals and complex proceedings without access to the full record — unless you can afford it.

How to Request a Transcript (What You Need to Know)

If you decide you need a transcript:

  • You must complete Form EX107
  • Submit it to the court
  • Wait for judicial approval
  • Obtain a quote from an approved transcription provider

For sentencing remarks specifically, you can use:

Form EX107H — Apply for a transcript of a judge’s sentencing remarks

Before you apply, ask yourself:

  • Do I need the full hearing transcript — or just part?
  • Is there enough reasoning already in the order?
  • Can I narrow the request to reduce cost?

A Critical Point Most Litigants Miss

Part of the judgment is often embedded within the court order.

But here is the risk:

If the order is drafted by the other side’s barrister, it may:

  • Frame findings in their favour
  • Omit nuance
  • Exclude important oral reasoning

That is why:

You must always check the draft order against what actually happened in court.

If necessary, you can:

  • Challenge the wording
  • Submit your own draft
  • Request clarification from the judge

Where This Is Going: AI and the Future of Transcripts

The Government has signalled a clear direction:

AI-assisted transcription.

If implemented properly, this could:

  • Reduce costs dramatically
  • Increase accessibility
  • Improve consistency across courts

But until that becomes operational, the current system remains:

Expensive, slow, and unequal.

Final Thought — and a Question for You

If you have applied for a court transcript, your experience matters.

How much did it cost you?

Was it worth it?

And more importantly:

Should access to your own case depend on your ability to pay?

If you need support reviewing your court order, preparing for appeal, or deciding whether a transcript is necessary, you can book a consultation below.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and strategic guidance only. It reflects publicly available materials and commentary on matters of public interest. Links to third-party content are provided for reference and do not imply endorsement.

Useful Links for Litigants in Person

The Unregulated Legal Support Market Is Changing – And Not Everyone Will Survive Mazur | JSH Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

For years, the unregulated legal support market has operated in a space shaped more by necessity than structure. As increasing numbers of litigants in person entered the family courts, support services evolved to fill a widening gap—often quickly, and not always with clearly defined boundaries. The High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP marks a turning point. It does not change the law, but it does change how closely that law is now being examined in practice. The result is a shift that will not affect everyone equally—and not every model will survive it.

The Unregulated Legal Support Market Is Changing – And Not Everyone Will Survive Mazur | JSH Law
Key Takeaways
  • The unregulated legal support market is entering a period of increased scrutiny.
  • The distinction between support and conduct of litigation is now central.
  • Models that blur this line are likely to face challenge.
  • Structured, transparent support models will become the standard.
  • This shift will reshape access to justice, not remove it.

The Unregulated Legal Support Market Is Changing – And Not Everyone Will Survive Mazur

For years, the unregulated legal support market has operated in a space that was, if not undefined, then at least loosely interpreted in practice.

That space emerged out of necessity. As the number of litigants in person increased—particularly in the family courts—the demand for accessible, affordable support grew with it. In response, a wide range of support models developed, from informal assistance through to highly structured services.

Some of those models have provided genuine value. Others have blurred lines that were always present in law but not always enforced in practice.

The High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) signals that this period of ambiguity is coming to an end.

The question is no longer whether the line exists. It is whether it is being respected.

—

A Market Built on Demand

To understand the significance of this shift, it is necessary to understand how the current landscape developed.

Over the past decade, the reduction in legal aid and the increasing cost of private representation have resulted in a substantial rise in litigants in person. In family proceedings, this is no longer the exception—it is the norm.

Where demand exists, supply follows.

The result has been the growth of an unregulated support sector, offering services that range from basic administrative help to full-scale case preparation.

In many instances, these services have filled a critical gap.

But the absence of clear structural boundaries has also led to inconsistency in how those services are delivered.

—

The Legal Position Was Always Clear

It is important to be precise about one point.

The legal framework has not changed.

The Legal Services Act 2007 has always made clear that “conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity. Only authorised or exempt individuals are permitted to carry it out.

What has changed is the level of attention being given to that distinction.

The decision in Mazur reinforces a strict interpretation of the law and, more importantly, signals that the courts are prepared to look beyond labels and examine what is actually happening in practice.

This is a shift from form to substance.

—

From Labels to Reality

For some time, the terminology used within the unregulated sector has allowed for a degree of flexibility.

Terms such as “support”, “assistance”, or “case help” can describe a wide range of activity.

The issue is that the law is not concerned with terminology. It is concerned with function.

If a person is, in substance, making decisions, managing the case, and acting on behalf of the litigant, then the question becomes whether they are conducting litigation—regardless of how their role is described.

This is where the impact of Mazur is most significant.

The focus is now on what is being done, not what it is called.

—

What This Means for the Sector

This shift is likely to have a filtering effect on the market.

Models that are clearly structured, transparent, and compliant with the legal framework are likely to adapt and continue.

Models that rely on blurred boundaries may find themselves under increasing pressure.

This pressure may come from multiple directions:

  • Opposing parties raising procedural challenges
  • Courts scrutinising the role of those involved in a case
  • Increased awareness among litigants themselves

Over time, this is likely to lead to a more defined and professionalised support landscape.

—

The Risk of Misinterpretation

There is, however, a risk that this development is misunderstood.

It would be easy to interpret Mazur as a restriction on support for litigants in person.

That would be the wrong conclusion.

The need for support has not diminished. If anything, it has increased.

The issue is not whether support should exist.

It is how that support is structured.

Well-structured support enhances access to justice. Poorly structured support can undermine it.

—

A Turning Point for Professional Standards

This moment represents an opportunity as much as a challenge.

For those operating within the unregulated sector, it creates a clear incentive to:

  • Define their role precisely
  • Ensure that litigants remain in control of their cases
  • Operate transparently and consistently

In doing so, the sector has the potential to evolve.

From a loosely defined collection of services into a more structured, credible, and trusted component of the justice system.

—

The Future of Legal Support

Looking ahead, the likely trajectory is not the disappearance of unregulated support, but its refinement.

We are likely to see:

  • Clearer distinctions between support and representation
  • More structured service models
  • Greater awareness among litigants of their own role and responsibility

This aligns with a broader trend within the legal system.

One in which accessibility, transparency, and accountability are becoming increasingly central.

—

Final Thoughts

The unregulated legal support market was shaped by necessity.

It is now being shaped by scrutiny.

The decision in Mazur does not close the door on support.

It defines the terms on which that support can operate.

Those who adapt to that structure will continue to provide value. Those who do not may find that the space they have relied upon no longer exists in the same way.

This is not the end of the sector.

It is the beginning of a more defined one.

—

Structured Support That Works With the Law

If you are navigating proceedings as a litigant in person and want support that is both effective and properly structured, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. Any references to legal cases or third-party practices are provided for public interest analysis and educational purposes.

McKenzie Friend vs Running Your Case: Where the Legal Line Now Sits After Mazur

/0 Comments/in , /by

There has always been a quiet grey area in the family courts around what a McKenzie Friend actually does in practice. Many litigants in person rely heavily on support, and in some cases that support can become so involved that it begins to look like the case is being run for them. Following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, that grey area has now been brought into sharp focus. The court has made it clear that there is a legal boundary between supporting a case and conducting it—and understanding that boundary is now essential for anyone navigating proceedings without a solicitor.

McKenzie Friend vs Running Your Case: Where the Legal Line Now Sits | JSH Law Legal consultation and court paperwork discussion
Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • A McKenzie Friend provides support — they do not run your case.
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can conduct litigation.
  • The key legal test is who is in control of the case.
  • Crossing the line can expose your case to challenge.
  • Structured support strengthens your position; loss of control weakens it.

McKenzie Friend vs Running Your Case: Where the Legal Line Now Sits

There has always been a degree of confusion around the role of a McKenzie Friend.

For many litigants in person, the distinction feels blurred. You have support. That support may be experienced, knowledgeable, and heavily involved in your case. In practical terms, it can sometimes feel as though that person is “handling things” for you.

But following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), that distinction is no longer something that can be left unclear.

The law draws a firm line between supporting a case and conducting it.

Understanding where that line sits is now essential.

—

The Role of a McKenzie Friend — What It Is Meant to Be

The role of a McKenzie Friend is well established in the courts of England and Wales. It exists to support litigants in person, particularly in complex or emotionally demanding proceedings such as family cases.

At its core, the role is supportive.

A McKenzie Friend may:

  • Assist with preparing documents
  • Help organise evidence
  • Provide guidance on procedure and strategy
  • Take notes during hearings
  • Offer quiet assistance in court

In some circumstances, and only with the court’s permission, they may also be allowed to address the court.

But even then, the underlying position does not change:

The litigant remains in control of their case.

—

What “Running the Case” Actually Means

This is where the distinction becomes critical.

Running a case—legally described as “conducting litigation”—goes beyond support. It involves:

  • Making decisions about how the case progresses
  • Sending correspondence on behalf of the party
  • Managing filings and procedural steps
  • Taking responsibility for how the case is conducted

These are not simply administrative tasks. They are the core functions of legal representation.

Under the Legal Services Act 2007, they are reserved to authorised or exempt individuals.

This is the line that Mazur has brought back into sharp focus.

—

Why This Line Matters Now More Than Ever

For years, there has been a degree of practical flexibility in how cases are supported, particularly where litigants in person are concerned.

That flexibility has, in some areas, led to roles becoming blurred.

The decision in Mazur does not introduce a new rule. What it does is reinforce the existing one—and signal that it will be taken seriously.

The courts are now more alert to:

  • Who is actually making decisions
  • Who is sending communications
  • Who appears to be in control of the case

If the answer is not the litigant, questions may arise.

—

The Practical Difference — Control

The easiest way to understand the distinction is this:

A McKenzie Friend supports your case. They do not control it.

In a properly structured case:

  • You decide what to do
  • You approve every document
  • You send communications in your own name
  • You take responsibility for the case

Support sits behind that process, not in place of it.

Where that structure is clear, there is no difficulty.

Where it is not, that is where risk begins.

—

How the Line Gets Crossed (Often Without Realising)

In practice, the line is rarely crossed deliberately.

It tends to happen gradually.

A litigant feels overwhelmed. Someone steps in to “help more”. That help becomes more hands-on. Decisions start being made. Emails start being sent. The case begins to feel as though it is being handled by someone else.

At that point, the structure has shifted.

What began as support may now look, from the outside, like conduct.

And it is how it appears externally that matters.

—

Why This Can Affect Your Case

If the distinction is not maintained, the issue is not simply theoretical.

It can become a point of challenge.

The other side may argue:

  • That your case has not been properly conducted
  • That procedural steps are open to question
  • That your position should be treated with caution

Even if those arguments do not ultimately succeed, they can create distraction, delay, and pressure.

In litigation, that matters.

—

The Strongest Position You Can Be In

The strongest position is one where the structure of your case is clear, transparent, and beyond challenge.

That means:

  • You are visibly in control
  • Your decisions are your own
  • Your documents reflect your position
  • Your case is supported, but not run by someone else

This does not weaken your case.

It strengthens it.

—

A Better Way to Think About Support

The most effective support model is not one where someone takes over.

It is one where you are equipped.

Where:

  • Your case is structured properly
  • Your evidence is organised clearly
  • Your arguments are prepared carefully
  • You understand what you are doing and why

That is what good support looks like.

It is not about removing your role.

It is about strengthening it.

—

Final Thoughts

The distinction between a McKenzie Friend and someone running a case has always existed.

What Mazur has done is make it impossible to ignore.

Support is allowed. Conduct is restricted. Control must remain with the litigant.

Once that is understood and properly structured, the position becomes clear—and your case becomes stronger for it.

—

Need Structured Support Without Risk?

If you want support that strengthens your case while keeping you fully in control and compliant, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. Any references to legal cases or third-party practices are provided for public interest analysis and educational purposes.

Could Your Case Be Invalid? The Hidden Risk After Mazur

/0 Comments/in , /by

Most litigants in person focus on the evidence in their case—what happened, what can be proven, and what outcome they are asking the court to make. But following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, there is another issue that is now just as important: who is actually running your case. If that line is blurred, it can create risks that go beyond the facts themselves—affecting how your case is viewed, how it is challenged, and ultimately how strong your position really is.

Could Your Case Be Invalid? The Hidden Risk After Mazur | JSH Law
Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • If someone else is effectively running your case, it may create legal risk.
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can conduct litigation.
  • The court is increasingly alert to who is actually in control of a case.
  • Opponents may use this issue tactically against you.
  • You must remain visibly and practically in control at all times.

Could Your Case Be Invalid? The Hidden Risk After Mazur

Most litigants in person are focused on the facts of their case.

What happened. What the evidence shows. What outcome they are asking the court to make.

But following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), there is another issue that cannot be ignored:

Who is actually running your case?

Because if the answer is “not you”, there may now be risks that many people simply haven’t considered.

—

Why This Issue Matters More Than Ever

The court in Mazur made it clear that “conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity. Only authorised or exempt individuals can carry it out.

This is not new law.

What has changed is how clearly—and how strictly—the courts are now prepared to apply it.

That means the question of who is in control of a case is no longer just technical. It can become a live issue.

—

What Could Go Wrong?

If someone else is effectively running your case—making decisions, sending correspondence on your behalf, or managing the process—you may face:

  • Challenges from the other side about how your case has been conducted
  • Increased scrutiny from the court
  • Arguments that your case has not been properly managed

This does not automatically mean your case is “invalid”.

But it does mean that your position may be more open to challenge than you expect.

—

The Tactical Reality

Family proceedings are often hard-fought.

Where an opportunity exists to challenge the other party’s position, it is often taken.

Following Mazur, one such line of challenge may be:

“This case has not been conducted properly.”

Even raising that argument can:

  • Shift focus away from your core case
  • Create additional pressure
  • Undermine how your case is perceived

That is a risk worth managing carefully.

—

The Most Common Misunderstanding

Many litigants assume that as long as they have help, they are protected.

That is not the test.

The test is control.

Are you the one making the decisions and taking the steps in your case?

If the answer is unclear, that is where problems can begin.

—

What a Safe Structure Looks Like

A properly structured case will always show that:

  • You make the decisions
  • You approve all documents
  • You send communications in your own name
  • You sign and file everything

Support can sit behind that.

It can be strong, detailed, and strategic.

But it must remain support.

—

Red Flags to Watch For

If any of the following are happening, it is worth stepping back and reassessing:

  • Someone else is emailing the court or the other side on your behalf
  • Documents are being sent without your clear approval
  • Decisions are being made “for you”
  • You feel like you are not fully in control of your case

These are not just practical concerns—they may now carry legal significance.

—

Staying in Control Strengthens Your Case

This is not just about avoiding risk.

When you are clearly in control of your case:

  • Your credibility improves
  • Your position is harder to challenge
  • Your case presentation becomes more coherent

Structure is not a limitation.

It is an advantage.

—

Final Thoughts

The decision in Mazur does not mean you should face proceedings alone.

It means that how your support is structured now matters more than ever.

The strongest position is one where you are clearly in control, supported by the right structure behind you.

Get that right, and your case remains focused where it should be—on the outcome for you and your family.

—

Need Structured Support With Your Case?

If you are a litigant in person and want support that strengthens your case without exposing you to unnecessary risk, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. Any references to legal cases or third-party practices are provided for public interest analysis and educational purposes.

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case | JSH Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

The High Court has just drawn a firm line around who is actually allowed to run a court case—and it’s a line many people have been crossing without realising. In Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), the court made it clear that only authorised or exempt individuals can conduct litigation, and that supervision is not enough. For litigants in person, this is not just a technical legal point—it goes directly to how your case is handled, how it is perceived by the court, and whether your position is open to challenge.

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case | JSH Law High Court legal proceedings and litigation documents
Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can legally conduct litigation.
  • Even well-meaning support can cross the line if someone starts running your case.
  • You must remain in control of your case at all times.
  • Getting this wrong can expose your case to challenge or criticism.
  • Structured, compliant support can strengthen your position significantly.

Mazur Explained: The Case That Changes Who Can Run Your Court Case

There has been a significant shift in how the courts are approaching who is actually allowed to run a case.

The High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has clarified something that, until now, many people in the legal world had quietly blurred:

Only certain people are legally allowed to conduct litigation — and supervision is not enough.

For litigants in person, this matters more than you might realise.

—

What Happened in Mazur?

The case arose from a situation where work on a legal matter had been carried out by someone who was not an authorised solicitor or exempt person, but who was working within a legal environment.

The argument was that because this individual was supervised, their actions were acceptable.

The High Court disagreed.

The judgment made it clear that:

  • “Conduct of litigation” is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007
  • Only authorised or exempt individuals can carry it out
  • Supervision by a solicitor does not make an unauthorised person compliant

This was not a new rule — but it is now being applied much more strictly.

—

What Does “Conduct of Litigation” Actually Mean?

This is the critical question.

It does not just mean standing up in court. It includes:

  • Making decisions about how the case is run
  • Sending correspondence on behalf of a party
  • Filing documents
  • Taking responsibility for procedural steps

In simple terms:

If someone else is effectively running your case — they may be conducting litigation.

—

Why This Matters for Litigants in Person

Many litigants in person rely on support. That support can be incredibly valuable — and in many cases, essential.

But there is now a much sharper line between:

  • Support (which is allowed), and
  • Conduct (which is restricted)

If that line is crossed, it can lead to:

  • Challenges from the other side
  • Increased scrutiny from the court
  • Questions about how the case has been handled

This is not about creating fear — it is about understanding how to stay on solid ground.

—

The Difference Between Support and Running the Case

A properly structured support model looks like this:

  • You make the decisions
  • You send the emails
  • You sign and file the documents
  • You speak for yourself in court

Support can include:

  • Drafting documents for you
  • Helping you prepare your case
  • Advising you on strategy
  • Assisting you in court as a McKenzie Friend

The key distinction is control.

You must remain in control of your case at all times.

—

What This Means in Practice

If you are receiving support, you should always be able to say:

  • “I reviewed and approved this document”
  • “I chose to send this”
  • “These are my instructions”

That clarity protects you.

It also strengthens your credibility in court.

—

A Shift in the Legal Landscape

This decision reflects a wider shift.

The courts are becoming more alert to:

  • Who is actually running a case
  • Whether the proper boundaries are being respected
  • How unregulated support is being used

At the same time, the reality remains:

Access to justice increasingly depends on litigants in person having the right support.

The answer is not less support.

It is better-structured support.

—

Final Thoughts

Mazur does not remove your ability to get help.

What it does is make one thing very clear:

There is a right way to do this — and a wrong way.

If your case is structured properly, support can be a powerful advantage.

If it is not, it can become a vulnerability.

Understanding that distinction is now essential.

—

Need Support With Your Case?

If you are navigating proceedings as a litigant in person and want structured, strategic support that keeps your case clear, compliant and strong, you can book an initial consultation below.

—

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide regulated legal services. This article is for general information and commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. Any references to legal cases or third-party practices are provided for public interest analysis and educational purposes.

When Support Becomes Risk: Domestic Abuse Advocacy, McKenzie Friends and Access to Justice in Family Court

/0 Comments/in , /by

The legal sector’s wellbeing crisis for women is well documented—but for those supporting litigants in person in family court, the issue runs deeper. This article examines the hidden risks faced by domestic abuse advocates and McKenzie Friends, and why their vulnerability is not just personal, but a systemic access-to-justice concern.

Key takeaways for litigants in person:
  • Support from McKenzie Friends and domestic abuse advocates is often critical—but not formally protected within the legal system.
  • High-conflict family proceedings can lead to allegations being used tactically, sometimes extending to those providing support.
  • The removal or disruption of support—whether through complaints, threats, or police involvement—can significantly impact case outcomes.
  • This is not just a wellbeing issue; it is an access-to-justice issue affecting fairness in family proceedings.
  • Litigants should document all interactions, maintain clear boundaries, and ensure their support network is strategically structured.

When Support Becomes Risk: The Hidden Cost of Domestic Abuse Advocacy in Family Court

Clarity. Strategy. Confidence.

The legal sector is increasingly confronting a difficult truth: women working within it—particularly in high-conflict practice areas—are experiencing sustained levels of burnout, stress, and systemic pressure that are not being adequately addressed.

Recent findings from organisations such as :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} highlight a stark reality. Women in law report lower wellbeing scores and higher levels of burnout than their male counterparts. The causes are often framed in familiar terms: long hours, billable targets, and the ongoing challenge of balancing professional and personal responsibilities.

But this framing, while valid, is incomplete.

There is a more complex—and more uncomfortable—issue operating beneath the surface. One that is rarely acknowledged in formal surveys, policy discussions, or institutional responses.

What happens when the act of supporting vulnerable clients becomes a risk to your own safety, reputation, and liberty?

This is the reality for many women working alongside litigants in person in the family courts—particularly those operating as McKenzie Friends, legal consultants, and domestic abuse advocates.

The Expanding Role of Support in Family Proceedings

The modern family court is increasingly populated by litigants in person (LiPs). This is not a marginal trend—it is structural.

Legal aid restrictions, rising costs, and the complexity of proceedings have resulted in a system where individuals are expected to navigate deeply personal, high-stakes litigation without formal representation.

Into this gap step support providers:

  • McKenzie Friends
  • Independent legal consultants
  • Domestic abuse advocates
  • Peer supporters and campaigners

These roles are not merely administrative. In practice, they involve:

  • Preparing bundles and chronologies
  • Drafting position statements and responses
  • Advising on litigation strategy
  • Supporting clients emotionally through proceedings
  • Ensuring safeguarding concerns are properly articulated

In many cases, this support is the difference between a litigant being able to meaningfully participate in proceedings—or being overwhelmed by them.

Yet despite the critical nature of this work, these roles remain largely unregulated, unsupported, and unprotected.

The Gendered Reality of Advocacy Work

It is not coincidental that many of those providing this form of support are women.

Family law, domestic abuse advocacy, and child welfare work are all areas where female participation is high. These roles often attract individuals with lived experience, strong safeguarding instincts, and a commitment to protecting vulnerable parties.

But with that commitment comes exposure.

Exposure to:

  • High-conflict disputes
  • Allegations and counter-allegations
  • Emotional volatility
  • Procedural pressure
  • Institutional opacity

And increasingly, exposure to something more concerning: personal risk arising from the cases themselves.

When Allegations Expand Beyond the Parties

Family proceedings—particularly those involving allegations of domestic abuse—are inherently adversarial. Where credibility is central, narratives matter. Evidence matters. Framing matters.

Within this environment, it is not uncommon for allegations to escalate.

What is less openly discussed is how those allegations can extend beyond the parties themselves.

Support providers may find themselves:

  • Named in correspondence or complaints
  • Accused of influencing or coaching litigants
  • Drawn into disputes between the parties
  • Subject to reputational attacks

In some cases, these dynamics go further.

There are increasing concerns that legal and procedural mechanisms—including complaints and, in certain circumstances, police involvement—can be used in a way that has the effect of removing or discrediting those providing support.

This is a critical point.

The issue is not whether allegations are always unfounded. Clearly, that is not the case. But the system must recognise that in a high-conflict environment, allegations can also be strategic.

And when they are, the consequences extend beyond the immediate parties.

The Immediate Impact: Disruption of Support

The removal of a support provider—whether through fear, pressure, or formal intervention—has immediate consequences.

For the litigant in person, it can mean:

  • Loss of continuity in case preparation
  • Inability to respond effectively to allegations
  • Increased emotional distress
  • Procedural disadvantage at hearings

For the support provider, it can mean:

  • Reputational damage
  • Emotional and psychological strain
  • Withdrawal from advocacy work entirely
  • Reluctance to support future clients

This creates what can only be described as a chilling effect.

Capable, committed individuals begin to step back—not because the work is unnecessary, but because the risk becomes unsustainable.

Secondary Trauma and Systemic Blind Spots

Even without direct legal or reputational risk, the nature of domestic abuse advocacy carries a significant emotional burden.

Support providers are routinely exposed to:

  • Detailed accounts of abuse
  • Safeguarding concerns involving children
  • Evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour
  • Prolonged litigation cycles with uncertain outcomes

This is, in effect, secondary trauma.

Yet unlike regulated professionals, many support providers operate without:

  • Formal supervision
  • Access to structured mental health support
  • Clear professional boundaries recognised by the system
  • Institutional backing

When this emotional burden is combined with the risk of being drawn into the dispute itself, the impact on wellbeing becomes significant.

The Access to Justice Problem

This is where the issue moves beyond individual wellbeing and into systemic concern.

The family justice system relies—whether explicitly or implicitly—on the presence of informal support structures for litigants in person.

If those structures become unstable or unsafe, the consequences are predictable:

  • Reduced quality of evidence presented to the court
  • Increased procedural errors
  • Greater strain on judicial time and resources
  • Outcomes that may not fully reflect the child’s welfare

In domestic abuse cases, where safeguarding is paramount, the stakes are even higher.

The removal of informed, consistent support can directly affect how concerns are articulated, understood, and ultimately determined.

This is not a peripheral issue.

It goes to the heart of fairness in proceedings.

The Regulatory Gap

At present, there is no comprehensive framework governing the role, protection, or accountability of individuals providing litigation support outside of regulated legal practice.

McKenzie Friends, in particular, occupy a legally recognised but operationally ambiguous position.

They are permitted to:

  • Provide assistance with case preparation
  • Offer support in court
  • Take notes and quietly advise

But they are not afforded:

  • Clear professional protections
  • Defined safeguards against misuse of allegations
  • Consistent recognition of their role within proceedings

This creates a structural imbalance.

Support is permitted—but not protected.

What Needs to Change

If the legal sector is serious about addressing the wellbeing of women working within it, this issue cannot be ignored.

Meaningful reform requires a shift in perspective.

1. Recognition of the Role

There must be formal recognition of the contribution made by litigation support providers in family proceedings.

This includes acknowledging:

  • The complexity of the work undertaken
  • The safeguarding context in which it operates
  • The reliance placed on it by litigants in person

2. Clear Guidance and Boundaries

The system requires clearer guidance on:

  • The scope of permissible support
  • The distinction between assistance and interference
  • The appropriate treatment of support providers within proceedings

3. Safeguards Against Misuse

Mechanisms must be considered to prevent the misuse of complaints, allegations, or processes in a way that disrupts lawful support.

This is not about shielding individuals from accountability.

It is about ensuring that the system cannot be used tactically to remove support where it is legitimately provided.

4. Wellbeing Support and Awareness

Workforce wellbeing strategies must extend beyond traditional legal roles.

This includes:

  • Recognition of secondary trauma
  • Access to support resources
  • Inclusion of advocacy roles in wellbeing discussions

A Strategic Reality

For those currently operating in this space, the reality is clear.

This work is essential—but it is not without risk.

That risk must be managed strategically.

This includes:

  • Maintaining clear professional boundaries
  • Documenting all interactions and advice
  • Avoiding direct involvement in disputes between parties
  • Ensuring communications are measured and evidence-based

Above all, it requires an understanding that the environment is not neutral.

Family proceedings—particularly those involving allegations—are dynamic, contested, and, at times, unpredictable.

Conclusion: Beyond Wellbeing

The conversation about women’s wellbeing in the legal sector is necessary—and overdue.

But it must go further.

It must recognise that in certain areas of practice, the issue is not simply one of workload or workplace culture.

It is one of risk.

Risk to reputation.

Risk to mental health.

And, in some cases, risk arising directly from the act of providing support itself.

Until this is acknowledged—and addressed—the system will continue to rely on individuals who are operating without the protections that their role demands.

And litigants in person, particularly those navigating domestic abuse cases, will continue to face proceedings without the consistent support they need.

Clarity. Strategy. Confidence.

Those principles do not apply only to litigation.

They must apply to the system itself.

Need structured support in your case?
Litigation Support | Family Law Strategy | AI-Enabled Legal Systems

Book a 15-minute initial consultation

Regulatory & Editorial Notice:
JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and does not provide reserved legal activities. The content of this article is for information and commentary purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Any references to systemic issues or procedural concerns are based on general observations within the family justice system and should not be taken as findings in any individual case.

Start Here: Inside the UK Supreme Court — What Litigants in Person Need to Understand About How Judges Think

/0 Comments/in /by

This “Start Here” resource takes you inside the UK Supreme Court through a powerful documentary that humanises the justices and explains how decisions are made at the highest level. While most litigants in person will never appear before the Supreme Court, the judicial mindset you see in this film filters down through every level of the court system — including the Family Court. The documentary explores how judges approach cases with detachment, discipline and structured reasoning, and why impartiality is essential to protecting the rule of law. For litigants in person, this insight is invaluable. Courts do not decide cases based on emotion or sympathy; they apply statutory frameworks, weigh evidence carefully and explain their reasoning. Understanding how senior judges think helps you reframe your own case: from personal grievance to legally structured argument. This guide explains the key themes of the documentary and shows how to use it strategically to strengthen your approach in family proceedings.

Start Here: Inside the UK Supreme Court — What Litigants in Person Need to Understand About How Judges Think

Resources > Start Here Pillar  |  Understanding the Supreme Court  |  Why this matters to Family Court litigants

Key takeaways for litigants in person

  • Judges are not campaigners or investigators — they decide cases based on the evidence and legal framework presented to them.
  • Detachment and impartiality are deliberate disciplines, not signs of indifference.
  • The rule of law depends on structured reasoning, not emotion or public pressure.
  • Senior judges carry enormous responsibility — every word in a judgment matters.
  • Your credibility in court is strengthened by clarity, restraint and evidence-led argument.
  • Understanding how judges think helps you stop arguing emotionally and start arguing strategically.

If you are navigating Family Court as a litigant in person, it can feel intensely personal. Your child. Your home. Your safety. Your future.

But courts do not decide cases emotionally.

This documentary offers a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the UK Supreme Court — the highest court in the country — and the justices who sit on it. While most litigants will never appear before the Supreme Court, the mindset you see here filters all the way down through the judicial system.

If you want to understand how judges think, this is worth watching.

Watch: Inside the UK Supreme Court

Watch this not as entertainment — but as insight into the culture of judicial decision-making.

1. The Nature of Judicial Work: Intellectual Discipline Over Emotion

One of the strongest themes in the documentary is the intellectual discipline required at the highest level of judging. Supreme Court Justices describe their work as demanding, solitary and deeply analytical.

They carry bags of case papers. They read alone. They reflect. They test arguments against principle.

What you see clearly is this:

  • Judges are not reacting.
  • They are reasoning.
  • They are constantly checking themselves for bias.

For a litigant in person, that matters.

If you enter court thinking: “Once the judge hears how terrible this has been, they will understand” — you are only half right.

Judges do understand distress. But distress alone is not a legal argument.

The Supreme Court documentary shows how decisions are structured: principle → evidence → application → conclusion.

That structure applies in Family Court too.

2. Impartiality Is a Discipline, Not a Personality Trait

The justices speak openly about detachment. This can be uncomfortable for litigants to hear.

When you are in crisis, detachment can feel cold.

But the documentary makes something very clear: impartiality is a conscious discipline. It protects the fairness of the system.

Judges deliberately step back from:

  • Public opinion
  • Media pressure
  • Personal sympathy
  • Emotional narratives

They focus on law and evidence.

In Family Court, this means:

  • They will not “side” with a parent because they appear more distressed.
  • They will not punish a parent for moral failings unless legally relevant.
  • They will not decide based on who argues more passionately.

They decide based on statutory framework and welfare analysis.

Understanding this reduces shock. It helps you prepare differently.

3. The Supreme Court’s Role in Democracy — Why It Matters to You

The documentary emphasises the Supreme Court’s constitutional role: safeguarding rights, ensuring fairness, and maintaining the rule of law.

That may feel distant from your children arrangements hearing.

It isn’t.

The same principles apply:

  • The court is independent of government.
  • The court is independent of public campaigns.
  • The court applies law consistently.
  • The court protects minority rights — even unpopular ones.

If you feel unheard in Family Court, it is rarely because the judge does not care. It is usually because the argument has not been framed in a legally relevant way.

The rule of law means decisions must be reasoned and explainable. That protects you as much as it protects the other party.

4. The Human Side of Judges — And Why That Should Reassure You

One of the most powerful elements of the documentary is its humanising tone. You see justices commuting. Reading at home. Carrying heavy files. Speaking candidly about responsibility.

They are not remote arbiters floating above society. They are individuals carrying extraordinary responsibility.

They know their decisions affect lives.

That awareness is sobering.

For litigants in person, this is important:

  • Judges do not take decisions lightly.
  • They are aware of consequences.
  • They are cautious about overreach.
  • They rely heavily on what is formally before them.

If something critical is not evidenced or clearly structured in your case, the judge cannot act on instinct alone.

5. What This Means for Your Family Court Case

After watching this documentary, ask yourself:

  • Have I structured my case around law — or emotion?
  • Have I clearly identified the statutory framework?
  • Have I proposed a workable order?
  • Have I separated allegations from evidence?
  • Have I shown impact on the child (if relevant)?

Judges respect clarity. They respect proportionality. They respect focused submissions.

They do not reward chaos.

6. Passion and Dedication: Why Judicial Consistency Matters

A recurring theme in the film is commitment. Many of the justices could have retired comfortably. They remain because they believe in the rule of law.

That commitment underpins consistency. Consistency underpins predictability. Predictability underpins fairness.

In Family Court, this means outcomes are not random. They are shaped by:

  • Children Act 1989 welfare analysis
  • Evidence of harm or risk
  • Proportionality
  • Practical feasibility

If you align your case with those pillars, you increase your credibility immediately.

How to Watch This Documentary Strategically

Do not watch this passively.

Watch and reflect on:

  1. How the justices explain reasoning.
  2. How carefully they choose language.
  3. How they avoid personalisation.
  4. How they frame issues as principles, not grievances.

Then compare that with your draft statement.

If your draft reads like a diary entry, rewrite it as a structured submission.

Book a 15-minute consultation (phone)

If you want help restructuring your case in a way that aligns with how judges actually reason, you can book a 15-minute consultation below.

The goal is simple: clarity, structure and strategy.

Useful Links

  • UK Supreme Court Website
    Understand the role, judgments and constitutional function of the Court.
    Visit Supreme Court
  • Children Act 1989 (Section 1 Welfare Principle)
    The legal foundation of private children proceedings.
    View legislation
  • Practice Direction 12J
    Domestic abuse guidance in children cases.
    Read PD12J
  • Family Procedure Rules
    The procedural backbone of Family Court cases.
    View FPR
  • Cafcass – Parents & Carers
    Practical explanation of the safeguarding role.
    Cafcass guidance
  • Advicenow Family Guides
    Plain English guides for litigants in person.
    Advicenow

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article provides general commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. JSH Law provides litigation support services to litigants in person and does not conduct reserved legal activities. The embedded documentary remains the intellectual property of its publisher and is included for educational discussion purposes.

Start Here: A Clear, Candid Overview of UK Family Law — Baroness Hale’s “Family Law in the 21st Century”

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you are a litigant in person, one of the hardest parts of Family Court is not your case — it’s understanding the system around it. This “Start Here” resource embeds and breaks down a public lecture by Baroness Hale (former President of the UK Supreme Court) on Family Law in the 21st Century. Although recorded a few years ago, it remains one of the clearest big-picture explanations of what family law actually does: it defines relationships, gives legal status to some relationships, and provides remedies when things go wrong. The lecture also tackles issues litigants regularly encounter in practice — the myth of “common law marriage”, the rationale for no-fault divorce, how children’s welfare is analysed, and why procedure and duplication create hidden barriers for unrepresented parties. This guide pulls out the practical takeaways and shows how to watch the video strategically, so you can move from confusion to structure and present your case in the language the court works in.

Start Here: A Clear, Candid Overview of UK Family Law — Baroness Hale’s “Family Law in the 21st Century”

Resources > Start Here Pillar  |  Video explainer for litigants in person  |  England & Wales focus (with references to UK-wide context where relevant)

Key takeaways for litigants in person

  • Family law is bigger than “family court”: it defines relationships, gives legal status to some relationships, and provides remedies when things go wrong.
  • The modern trend is inclusion: the law has moved away from excluding children or families based on marital status.
  • “Wishes and feelings” matter, but the child’s welfare is paramount and decisions are not a popularity vote.
  • No-fault divorce was designed to reduce conflict — because conduct-based divorce fuels acrimony and makes co-parenting harder.
  • Unmarried cohabitants still have major legal gaps (despite widespread belief in “common law marriage”).
  • Procedure matters: complexity and duplication hurt litigants in person; simplifying how cases start could improve access to justice.

If you are a litigant in person, one of the hardest parts of the Family Court is not “your case” — it’s the wider system. The rules, the language, the assumptions, the different applications, the endless forms, and the emotional load of trying to make sense of it all at the same time.

That is why this video is worth your time.

It’s a public lecture by Baroness Hale of Richmond (former President of the UK Supreme Court) called “Family Law in the 21st Century”. It was produced a few years ago, but it remains a strong “big picture” explainer: what family law is, how it has evolved, and why the system feels difficult when you are unrepresented.

This article does three things:

  • Embeds the video so you can watch it in one place.
  • Explains the main ideas in plain English (without dumbing it down).
  • Pulls out what matters practically for litigants in person going through Family Court.

Watch the video: “Family Law in the 21st Century” (Baroness Hale)

Tip: if you are watching as a litigant in person, keep a notebook beside you. Write down the themes that apply to your situation: relationships, parental responsibility, children arrangements, remedies, and procedure.

What family law actually does (and why that matters in court)

One of the most helpful frameworks in this talk is her starting point: family law is not just “what happens in family court”. It does at least three things:

  1. Defines relationships (who counts as family for legal purposes).
  2. Gives legal status to some relationships (marriage, civil partnership, adoption, parental orders).
  3. Provides remedies when things go wrong (child arrangements, protective orders, divorce, finances).

This matters because litigants in person often enter proceedings believing the court is there to “decide who is right”. That is not the court’s job. The court’s job is to apply the law to the facts and make workable orders that promote welfare and safety.

If you bring the court a case that is essentially “this person is awful”, but you do not translate that into a welfare and safeguarding framework, you will feel unheard. Often, you are not unheard — you are just not speaking the court’s language.

Inclusion: the law moved away from excluding children and families

A significant part of the lecture tracks how family law has shifted from exclusion to inclusion. Historically, legal “family” was shaped by marriage and bloodline — and children born outside marriage could be treated very differently. Modern reforms moved towards recognising children as full family members regardless of their parents’ marital status.

For litigants in person, the practical point is this: the court will not treat a child as “less legitimate” because a relationship was informal. Your child’s welfare and stability come first.

But there is a second, more subtle point: the law distinguishes between:

  • Parentage (who is a legal parent), and
  • Parental responsibility (who has legal authority for key decisions).

That distinction matters in everyday disputes about schooling, medical decisions, travel, communication, and consent. If you don’t know whether someone has parental responsibility, you can waste months arguing the wrong point.

Quick reference: parental responsibility basics are explained by Cafcass here: Cafcass – Parental Responsibility.

Status relationships: marriage, civil partnership, adoption, parental orders

Another major theme is how the law “creates” family relationships through formal status. Marriage and civil partnership change legal status without a court order. Adoption and parental orders change legal relationships by court order.

Why does this matter to litigants in person? Because many of the most painful shocks in family breakdown happen when someone assumes they have rights that they do not.

1) The “common law marriage” myth

Baroness Hale touches on a reality that affects thousands of people: cohabitants often believe they have “marriage-like” financial rights. In England & Wales, that is usually not true. There are property and trust claims in some circumstances, but there is no automatic “divorce-style” financial remedy for cohabitants simply because they lived together.

If you are reading this and you are not married / not in a civil partnership, and your dispute is about housing or assets, this point is critical: the legal framework may be completely different from what people assume.

2) Religious-only marriages (and why remedies can be limited)

She also highlights the problem of religious marriages not recognised in civil law. This can affect financial remedies when relationships end. In plain terms: if you are not legally married under English law, you may not be entitled to the financial remedies people associate with divorce.

For litigants in person, that does not mean “no remedy exists” — it means you need to identify the correct route early. Leaving it until the end can be catastrophic.

Remedies: the Family Court’s main day-to-day work

When most people say “family law”, they mean the remedies: what happens when things go wrong.

Baroness Hale lists the reality plainly: remedies for domestic abuse, remedies for children arrangements, remedies to protect children from harm, and remedies for divorce and finances.

For litigants in person, two practical lessons sit underneath this:

1) The system is designed for risk-management, not moral judgment

Especially in children cases, the court is forward-looking: what arrangements reduce risk and promote stability going forward? That is why the court repeatedly returns to statutory structure, including the welfare checklist under the Children Act 1989. (A useful starting point is s.1 and s.1(3) for the welfare checklist.) Children Act 1989, s.1.

2) Domestic abuse: the issue is implementation as much as law

She notes something many survivors recognise: the legal framework can look “serviceable” on paper, but outcomes depend on implementation. In private children proceedings where domestic abuse is raised, the key procedural guidance is Practice Direction 12J.

If domestic abuse is part of your case, do not rely on “the court will know”. You must structure your case so the court is forced to apply the framework. That means: allegations, evidence, impact on the child, risk factors, and workable safeguarding proposals.

No-fault divorce: reducing conflict so co-parenting is possible

There is an excellent section in the Q&A where Baroness Hale explains why she supports no-fault divorce. Her reasoning is practical: conduct-based divorce encourages lists of accusations that inflame conflict, create bitterness, and make cooperation about children and finances harder.

For litigants in person, the take-home is not “divorce is easy”. It is: the system is slowly trying to remove unnecessary conflict from the process where it can. Family breakdown is hard enough; procedure should not make it harder.

Useful reference point: Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (legislation overview) .

Is the system biased against men (or women)? A more honest answer than you usually hear

One of the audience questions in the transcript asks whether the family court system is biased against men. Baroness Hale’s answer is realistic: men can feel it is stacked against them; women can feel it is stacked against them. The law is intended to be gender-neutral, and the correct analysis is child-centred.

For litigants in person, this is important because “bias” arguments often become a dead end. They drain your energy and rarely change the outcome. What changes outcomes is:

  • Evidence, not outrage.
  • Welfare analysis, not slogans.
  • Practical proposals, not punishment requests.
  • Credible safeguarding structure, not assumption.

If you want the court to make a different order, you need to show: (a) why the current arrangement is not meeting welfare needs or managing risk, and (b) what alternative order is workable and proportionate.

AI and family law: automation for process, not for human judgment

This is especially relevant given the wider debate about AI in legal services. Baroness Hale draws a clear line: some processes (like administrative steps) can be automated, but disputed facts and evaluative welfare judgments should not be.

If you are a litigant in person using AI tools:

  • Use them to organise, summarise, and structure.
  • Do not use them to invent, embellish, or “improve” evidence.
  • Always verify authorities and facts independently.

Your credibility matters more than your eloquence.

The “one-stop shop” idea: why procedure is the hidden barrier for litigants in person

Baroness Hale ends with a procedural reform idea that will resonate with anyone who has tried to run a case unrepresented: a single entry point into the family justice system.

Her point is straightforward: multiple processes, multiple application forms, repeated witness statements, duplicated facts — this creates avoidable friction. And when legal representation is low (as it is for many families), complexity becomes a form of exclusion.

This is exactly why “Start Here” resources matter. Litigants in person need:

  • A clear picture of the system, not fragments.
  • Joined-up information (one thing should link to the next).
  • Practical guidance on what the court actually needs.

If you watch this video and you feel “I finally understand what is happening”, that is the point. Knowledge reduces chaos.

How to use this video strategically (not just passively)

If you are currently in proceedings, here is a practical way to use this talk:

  1. Identify which “bucket” your case sits in: children arrangements, domestic abuse protection, divorce, finances, or multiple.
  2. Write your case theory in one sentence: “The order needed is X because welfare/safety requires Y.”
  3. List your top 5 facts that support that theory (with dates).
  4. Attach evidence to those facts (not to your feelings).
  5. Propose a workable order (contact plan, handovers, supervision, communication boundaries, review points).

This approach moves you from “reaction” to “strategy” — and that is where litigants in person begin to regain control.

Book a 15-minute consultation (phone)

If you are a litigant in person and you want help translating what you are experiencing into a structured court-ready approach, you can book a 15-minute consultation below.

The aim is clarity: what matters, what doesn’t, and what you should do next.

6 useful links (start here)

  • Children Act 1989, section 1 (welfare principle + welfare checklist)
    The statutory backbone of private children proceedings: welfare is paramount and the checklist guides analysis.
    View legislation
  • Practice Direction 12J (domestic abuse in children proceedings)
    The key procedural guidance when domestic abuse is raised — how courts should approach risk and contact.
    Read PD12J
  • Cafcass – Advice for parents and carers
    Practical information on safeguarding, parental responsibility, and what Cafcass does in private law cases.
    Cafcass parents hub
  • HMCTS – Find and download court forms
    Official form access point (C100, C1A, C79 and more). Always use the current version.
    Court and tribunal forms
  • Guidance on MIAMs and mediation
    A realistic starting point for resolving disputes without hearings where appropriate and safe.
    Family mediation guidance
  • Advicenow – Family court guides for litigants in person
    Plain-English guides designed for people running cases themselves (court process, statements, hearings).
    Advicenow guides

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information and commentary only. It does not constitute legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Every case turns on its own facts, evidence, and legal context. JSH Law provides litigation support services to litigants in person, including strategic guidance, document preparation assistance, and hearing support. JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and does not conduct litigation or provide reserved legal activities.

The embedded video remains the intellectual property of its respective publisher/rights holders. It is embedded here for educational and public-interest discussion purposes. Where links are provided to third-party resources (legislation, guidance, organisations), they are included for convenience and do not imply endorsement.

If you or a child are at immediate risk of harm, call 999 in an emergency. For urgent domestic abuse support, consider contacting specialist services in your area.

The Use of AI in Preparing Court Documents: Why the Civil Justice Council Consultation Matters

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

The Civil Justice Council has launched an eight-week consultation examining whether new rules are needed to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in preparing court documents. Chaired by Lord Justice Birss, the Working Group is considering whether safeguards or formal declarations should apply when legal representatives use AI to draft pleadings, witness statements and expert reports. The consultation recognises both the efficiency benefits of AI and the risks of hallucinated case citations, fabricated authorities and evidential integrity concerns. Particular focus is placed on witness statements and expert evidence, where authenticity is central to the administration of justice. The consultation closes on 14 April 2026. This article explains what is being proposed, why it matters for litigants in person and legal professionals, and how responsible AI use can strengthen — rather than undermine — credibility in court proceedings. PDF here.

The Use of AI in Preparing Court Documents: Why the Civil Justice Council Consultation Matters

Category: AI & Law / Procedural Updates  |  Audience: Litigants in Person & Legal Professionals (England & Wales)

Key takeaways for litigants in person

  • The Civil Justice Council (CJC) is consulting on whether rules should govern the use of AI in preparing court documents.
  • The consultation closes on 14 April 2026.
  • Proposals include possible declarations where AI has been used to generate substantive content.
  • Administrative uses (spell-check, transcription, formatting) are unlikely to require disclosure.
  • Witness statements and expert reports are likely to face stricter safeguards.

What Is This Consultation About?

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has published an Interim Report and opened an eight-week consultation examining whether procedural rules are needed to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in preparing court documents.

The Working Group is chaired by Lord Justice Birss and includes members of the judiciary, the Bar Council, the Law Society and academic representatives.

The core question is simple but significant:

Should formal rules govern how legal representatives use AI when preparing pleadings, witness statements, skeleton arguments and expert reports?

The consultation paper explains that AI has enormous potential benefits — but also significant risks, particularly around hallucinated case citations, fabricated material and evidential integrity.

Why This Matters

AI is already being used across the legal sector for:

  • Legal research
  • Drafting pleadings
  • Preparing skeleton arguments
  • Summarising disclosure
  • Drafting witness statements
  • Generating expert reports

The consultation recognises that while AI improves efficiency and access to justice, it also introduces risks including:

  • Hallucinated case citations
  • Invented legal authorities
  • Embedded bias in generated content
  • Deepfake or manipulated evidence
  • Hidden metadata (“white text”) manipulation

The administration of justice depends on reliability. If courts cannot trust documents filed before them, confidence in the system erodes.

What the Working Group Proposes

The consultation distinguishes between:

  • Administrative uses (spell-check, formatting, transcription, accessibility tools)
  • Substantive generative uses (AI drafting legal argument, evidence, or expert analysis)

The Working Group’s emerging position suggests:

  • No additional rule required for statements of case or skeleton arguments, provided a legal professional takes responsibility.
  • Stricter controls for witness statements, particularly trial statements.
  • Possible declarations confirming AI has not generated witness evidence.
  • Amendments to expert report statements of truth to require disclosure of AI use.

Witness Statements: The Most Sensitive Area

The report strongly indicates that generative AI should not be used to create or alter substantive witness evidence.

The concern is straightforward:

  • Witness statements must be in the witness’s own words.
  • AI “improving” phrasing may alter tone, emphasis or meaning.
  • Courts rely heavily on authenticity.

The Working Group proposes a declaration that AI has not been used to generate, embellish or rephrase evidence in trial witness statements.

That is significant. It signals that evidential integrity is where regulation will likely concentrate.

Expert Reports: Transparency Rather Than Prohibition

Unlike witness statements, expert reports may legitimately use AI tools for:

  • Data analysis
  • Document extraction
  • Technical modelling

However, the consultation proposes that experts should disclose and explain any AI use beyond administrative functions.

The aim is transparency — not prohibition.

What About Litigants in Person?

Notably, this consultation does not focus on regulating litigants in person.

The paper recognises that many unrepresented parties may rely on AI as their only accessible form of legal assistance.

That presents a policy tension:

  • AI can improve access to justice.
  • But AI can generate inaccuracies.
  • Litigants may lack the expertise to verify output.

Any regulation must therefore balance fairness with accessibility.

Should There Be Mandatory AI Declarations?

International approaches vary. Some US courts require certification of AI use. Others do not.

The Working Group is cautious. It recognises that:

  • AI is rapidly integrating into legal software.
  • It may soon be impossible to distinguish “AI use”.
  • Over-regulation may increase delay and satellite litigation.

The likely direction appears to be:

  • No blanket declaration for routine drafting.
  • Targeted safeguards for evidence.
  • Clear professional responsibility.

Why This Consultation Is Forward-Looking

AI is not going away. The question is not whether it will be used — but how responsibly.

The consultation reflects a mature approach:

  • Encourage innovation.
  • Protect evidential integrity.
  • Preserve public confidence.
  • Avoid stifling access to justice.

That balance is critical.

How to Respond to the Consultation

The consultation closes on 14 April 2026.

Responses can be submitted by completing the consultation cover sheet and sending it to:

CJC.AI.consultation@judiciary.uk

Questions about the process can be directed to:

CJC@judiciary.uk

Responses may be submitted in Word or PDF format.

What This Means Practically

If you are preparing court documents using AI:

  • Verify all case citations manually.
  • Check statutory references independently.
  • Do not use AI to generate witness evidence.
  • Retain responsibility for every word filed.

AI is a tool. It is not a shield.

A Realistic Perspective

Used responsibly, AI enhances efficiency. Used carelessly, it damages credibility.

The Civil Justice Council is not proposing a ban. It is seeking proportionate governance.

That distinction matters.

Book a 15-minute consultation (phone)

If you are navigating litigation and considering using AI tools, or if you are concerned about AI-generated material in your case, you can book a 15-minute consultation below:

Technology should strengthen your case — not undermine it.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article provides general commentary only and does not constitute legal advice. JSH Law provides litigation support services to litigants in person and does not conduct reserved legal activities. References to consultation materials are for informational purposes only.

You can download the pdf here : Interim-Report-and-Consultation-Use-of-AI-for-Preparing-Court-Documents-2.pdf

Transparency & Reporting in the Family Court (England & Wales)

/0 Comments/in , /by

Will your Family Court case be reported? Understand Transparency Orders, media access and anonymity protections from 2025.

Transparency & Reporting in the Family Court (England & Wales)

Family Court Procedure UK | Transparency & Reporting Framework (Nationwide from 27 January 2025)

Key Points for Litigants in Person

  • The Family Court is moving from a “closed” culture to controlled open reporting by accredited journalists and authorised legal bloggers.
  • From 27 January 2025, reporting provisions apply nationwide, subject to judicial discretion.
  • Children and families remain anonymous under strict Transparency Orders (TOs).
  • Parties themselves must not publish details of their case unless expressly permitted.
  • Judges retain full control to limit or prohibit reporting where welfare or privacy requires it.

Why Transparency Has Changed

The Family Court in England and Wales has historically operated in private. While journalists could attend hearings, they were often prevented from reporting what they observed.

Sir Andrew McFarlane’s 2021 Transparency Review concluded that the system required cultural reform to enhance public confidence while protecting children and families. The review emphasised that openness and confidentiality are not mutually exclusive.

Following a pilot (2023–2025) and independent evaluation, reporting provisions were extended nationwide from 27 January 2025.

Legal Framework

  • Family Procedure Rules 2010, r.27.10–27.11 – hearings in private; media attendance permitted.
  • Administration of Justice Act 1960, s.12 – restricts publication of information relating to children proceedings.
  • Children Act 1989, s.97(2) – prohibits identifying publication concerning children involved in proceedings.

The new framework operates within these statutory protections.

What Is a Transparency Order (TO)?

A Transparency Order is a court order permitting accredited journalists or authorised legal bloggers to report on a case, subject to strict anonymity provisions.

It sets out:

  • What may be reported
  • What must not be reported
  • How anonymity must be preserved
  • Any additional restrictions specific to the case

There is now a presumption in favour of granting a TO — but judges retain discretion.

Who Can Attend and Report?

  • Accredited journalists (UK Press Card holders)
  • Authorised legal bloggers (lawyers attending for journalistic or educational purposes)

Parties and members of the public do not acquire any new rights to publish.

What Can Be Reported?

Permitted (subject to TO):

  • An anonymised account of what happened in court
  • The legal issues and judicial reasoning
  • Procedural developments

Not permitted:

  • Names of children or parents
  • Addresses, schools, or identifying details
  • Photographs
  • Information that could lead to “jigsaw identification”

Breaching anonymity or statutory restrictions may amount to contempt of court.

How Judges Decide

The judge balances:

  • Public confidence and transparency
  • The child’s welfare
  • Privacy rights under Article 8 ECHR
  • Risks of jigsaw identification

The pilot evaluation found no notable anonymity breaches, but courts remain cautious — particularly in smaller communities.

Important: What Parties Cannot Do

Even under the new transparency framework, parties themselves remain prohibited from publishing about their case unless expressly authorised by the court.
  • No posting on social media
  • No sharing documents with journalists
  • No online commentary identifying the case

This prohibition remains unchanged.

Financial Remedy Proceedings

The original reporting pilot excluded financial remedy cases. Compelled financial disclosure remains subject to strict confidentiality rules. A separate transparency pathway is evolving for financial proceedings.

Before vs Now (Quick Comparison)

Topic Before 2023 From 27 Jan 2025
Attendance Media could attend but rarely report Media & legal bloggers may report under TO
Default position No general reporting Presumption in favour of TO
Judge’s control Strict reporting restrictions Tailored reporting with anonymity safeguards
Parties publishing Prohibited Still prohibited

Practical Guidance for Litigants in Person

  • Expect accredited observers in some hearings.
  • If concerned about safety or identification, raise this early with the judge.
  • Verify credentials before speaking to anyone claiming to be media.
  • Do not publish anything about your case without permission.

Transparency is about public accountability — not exposing families.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This page provides general information about transparency and reporting in the Family Court in England and Wales. It does not constitute legal advice. Publication restrictions remain complex and breach may amount to contempt of court. Always verify the current rules and seek advice where appropriate.

Concerned About Transparency in Your Case?

If you are worried about journalists attending your hearing, reporting restrictions, anonymity, or whether you can speak publicly about your case, you should take advice before doing anything that could place you at risk of breach.

Book a 15-minute consultation (phone)

If you need clarity on Transparency Orders, publication risks, or how to raise identification or safeguarding concerns with the judge, you can book a 15-minute initial consultation below.

Early procedural clarity can prevent serious consequences, including contempt of court.

Authoritative External Sources

  • Transparency Review (2021) – Judiciary of England & Wales
    Sir Andrew McFarlane’s report “Confidence and Confidentiality” setting out the framework for reform.
    View report on judiciary.uk
  • Family Court Reporting Provisions – Nationwide Rollout (2025)
    Official announcement confirming extension of reporting provisions across England and Wales.
    View announcement on judiciary.uk
  • Transparency & Reporting in the Family Courts – GOV.UK Guidance
    Practical guidance for families about Transparency Orders and reporting.
    View guidance on gov.uk
  • Family Procedure Rules 2010 (rr. 27.10–27.11)
    Rules governing private hearings and media attendance.
    View Part 27 on justice.gov.uk
  • Administration of Justice Act 1960, s.12
    Statutory restrictions on publication relating to children proceedings.
    View on legislation.gov.uk
  • Children Act 1989, s.97(2)
    Prohibition on identifying children involved in proceedings.
    View on legislation.gov.uk
  • Evaluation of the Family Court Reporting Pilot (NatCen, 2024)
    Independent evaluation of the transparency pilot scheme.
    View on natcen.ac.uk