Tag Archive for: Court preparation

You are here: / / Court preparation

This topic covers how to prepare effectively for family court hearings, including understanding directions, organising documents, and presenting information in a clear and proportionate way. It focuses on practical preparation rather than legal argument.

Articles under this tag are aimed at litigants in person who need to prepare bundles, statements, schedules, and submissions while meeting court expectations and procedural requirements.

Posts

JSH Law Resources and Guidance for Litigants in Person – practical family court information explained in plain English.© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.

AI Agents & Family Court: A Guide for Litigants in Person

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Artificial intelligence is moving beyond simply answering questions. The next generation of AI tools can increasingly work through documents, use digital tools, complete multi-step tasks and produce finished outputs. For an overwhelmed litigant in person trying to manage court orders, evidence, Cafcass reports, messages, deadlines and years of chronology, that could be enormously significant. But greater capability also creates greater risk. This is the first article in my new JSH Law series exploring what AI agents could mean for family justice — practically, legally and safely.

JSH Law | AI, Access to Justice & the Family Court | Part 1

AI Agents and the Family Court: What Litigants in Person Need to Know

There is a significant difference between asking artificial intelligence to explain how to do something and giving an AI system the tools, information and instructions to actually carry out parts of the work. That distinction matters enormously for litigants in person. Used properly, the next generation of AI tools could help people organise evidence, manage documents, identify gaps, build chronologies and reduce the crushing administrative burden of running a family court case. Used badly, they can create false law, distort evidence, expose confidential information and make an already difficult case worse.

This article is the first in a new JSH Law series about AI agents, legal work and access to justice.

I am currently completing Mercor Academy’s Introduction to Agents certification. Rather than simply collecting another certificate, I want to turn what I am learning into something practical for people navigating the family courts without a solicitor. Each article in this series will take one core idea about AI agents and ask a more important question: what does this actually mean for a litigant in person?

The short version

A traditional AI chatbot mainly gives you information. An AI agent can potentially take a goal, work through several steps, use tools and documents, interact with a digital workspace and produce a finished output.

For litigants in person, that could eventually mean far more than asking, “What is a position statement?” It could mean asking a properly configured system to organise hundreds of documents, build a dated evidence index, identify missing records and prepare a structured chronology for you to review. But the human being must remain responsible for accuracy, evidence, confidentiality and what is ultimately put before the court.

1. First: what is an AI agent?

Most people first encountered generative AI through a chatbot. You type a question. The system gives you an answer.

That can be enormously useful, but you are still doing most of the work.

Suppose you have a family court hearing coming up and 600 pages of emails, school records, court orders, Cafcass documents and messages.

You might ask a chatbot:

“How should I prepare a chronology for family court?”

The AI may explain what a chronology is, suggest headings and tell you how to organise one.

Helpful.

But you still have 600 pages to work through.

An agentic system is different.

In principle, if it has been given appropriate access to the documents and the right instructions, you could give it a goal such as:

“Review these documents. Create a chronological table of events. For every entry include the date, event, source document, page reference, person involved and relevance. Do not infer facts that are not expressly supported by the documents. Flag contradictions separately and identify any period where important evidence appears to be missing.”

The system would not merely tell you how to build a chronology. It would attempt to perform the workflow.

That is the important distinction.

“A chatbot tells you how to do the work. An agent can potentially carry out parts of the work.”

2. Why this distinction matters so much to litigants in person

Litigants in person are often expected to perform an extraordinary number of different roles at once.

You may be trying to:

  • understand court orders;
  • comply with deadlines;
  • organise disclosure;
  • read Cafcass material;
  • prepare statements;
  • find relevant evidence;
  • manage hundreds or thousands of messages;
  • prepare a chronology;
  • identify breaches of orders;
  • respond to correspondence;
  • research law and procedure;
  • prepare hearing documents;
  • look after children;
  • work;
  • sleep;
  • and somehow remain calm enough to explain the case coherently when you eventually reach court.

That burden becomes even harder where domestic abuse, coercive control, trauma, safeguarding concerns or post-separation abuse are involved.

The administrative load is not neutral.

Being required to repeatedly reread abusive messages, reconstruct years of events and constantly revisit distressing material can itself be exhausting. Important evidence can become buried simply because there is too much of it.

This is where responsible AI has enormous potential.

Not because an AI system should decide your case.

It should not.

But because technology may be able to take some of the mechanical burden away from the human being who is already carrying everything else.

The real access-to-justice opportunity

The most valuable use of AI in family litigation may not be asking it to “tell me what the law says”. It may be allowing people to spend less time sorting documents, copying dates, checking spreadsheets and rebuilding timelines — and more time understanding the actual issues in their case.

3. What could an AI agent actually help a litigant in person do?

The technology is developing quickly, and different systems have different capabilities. But it is already useful to think in terms of workflows rather than individual prompts.

Here are some examples.

Chronology building

Instead of manually copying dates from hundreds of documents, an agent could potentially extract dated events and organise them into a structured chronology.

The human then checks it.

Evidence indexing

An agent could identify documents, dates, senders, recipients and subject matter and create an evidence index.

That can be particularly helpful where the issue is not lack of evidence but finding the right evidence quickly.

Finding patterns

In some cases, individual incidents look insignificant when viewed alone.

A pattern may only become visible when events are placed together.

For example:

  • repeated cancelled contact;
  • changes in explanations over time;
  • conditions repeatedly being added to communication;
  • school or medical information not being shared;
  • important decisions being made without consultation;
  • contact repeatedly being interrupted around particular events;
  • different accounts of the same event appearing in different documents.

AI can be useful in locating and grouping those events.

But identifying a pattern is not the same as proving what that pattern means.

That requires judgement, context and evidence.

Checking compliance with an order

A carefully directed system might compare the terms of a child arrangements order against a contact log and identify dates where the ordered arrangements appear not to have taken place.

Again, that does not automatically establish a legal breach. There may be explanations, later orders, agreements or contextual facts the system has not seen.

But it can help identify the events that need human examination.

Document preparation

AI can help convert disorganised notes into structured material, shorten repetitive writing, identify missing dates and improve readability.

The important word is help.

It should not silently invent the facts of your case.

Case management

An agent could potentially track deadlines, create task lists, identify documents required by an order and remind you when something has not yet been completed.

For many litigants, that kind of administrative support may be more valuable than asking AI to predict who will “win”.

4. But this is where we need to be very careful

The phrase “AI agent” can sound as though the sensible thing to do is hand your case to the machine and walk away.

That would be dangerous.

Family cases involve children, allegations, memory, disputed facts, safeguarding, credibility, domestic abuse, medical information and deeply private personal data.

A system capable of taking actions is potentially more useful than a chatbot.

It is also potentially more capable of making consequential mistakes.

Do not confuse automation with accuracy

An AI system can process information quickly and still be wrong.

It can create a beautifully formatted chronology containing the wrong date.

It can produce confident legal analysis based on a case that does not exist.

The fact that the output looks professional does not make it reliable.

5. AI can invent law

This is no longer a theoretical concern.

In Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the High Court dealt with serious problems involving false legal authorities being placed before the court in circumstances involving actual or suspected use of generative AI.

The wider message from the judgment is extremely important:

You remain responsible for material you rely upon.

AI tools can produce apparently convincing case names, quotations, citations and legal propositions that are simply wrong.

Courts are not required to forgive inaccurate material because “AI generated it”.

A litigant in person therefore needs a verification habit.

Before relying on an AI-generated legal authority

  1. Confirm that the case actually exists.
  2. Find the judgment from a reliable legal or official source.
  3. Read the relevant part yourself.
  4. Check that the quotation actually appears in the judgment.
  5. Check that the case says what the AI claims it says.
  6. Check whether there is newer authority.
  7. Do not cite a case simply because an AI tool gave you a neutral citation.

If you cannot verify it, do not put it before the court as authority.

6. Witness statements need particular care

This is an area where litigants in person should be especially cautious.

A witness statement is evidence.

It is not simply another piece of persuasive writing.

The Civil Justice Council has been examining the use of AI in the preparation of court documents and has specifically identified witness statements as an area requiring careful consideration. One of the concerns is obvious: AI can subtly reshape, embellish or restructure a person’s account in ways that may alter the authentic evidence.

That matters.

There is a legitimate difference between using technology to help organise what you want to say and allowing technology to manufacture what you supposedly remember.

A useful rule

Your statement must remain your evidence, your memory and your account. AI may help you organise it. It should not supply the facts.

If AI adds an event that you cannot personally recall, strengthens an allegation beyond what you actually remember, attributes a motive you did not witness, or changes “I think” into “I know”, that can fundamentally alter the evidence.

That is not harmless editing.

7. Be exceptionally careful with confidential family-court information

Family proceedings routinely contain some of the most sensitive information imaginable.

Children’s names, dates of birth, addresses, schools, medical records, safeguarding allegations, police material, domestic abuse disclosures and psychological information may all appear within the same bundle.

Do not assume that because an AI service gives you a box to upload something, it is therefore appropriate to upload it.

Before entering confidential or personal information into an AI system, understand:

  • what service you are using;
  • what happens to uploaded information;
  • whether data is retained;
  • whether it may be used to improve or train systems;
  • who can access it;
  • whether you can delete it;
  • and whether uploading it is consistent with your legal and procedural obligations.

The judiciary’s own AI guidance specifically emphasises confidentiality and the danger of entering private information into public AI tools.

That warning should matter to litigants too.

Family cases contain children’s information

Do not treat children’s medical, school, safeguarding or private family information as ordinary data simply because an AI tool makes uploading documents easy. The sensitivity of the information does not disappear because the interface is convenient.

8. The real skill is not “prompting”. It is directing

One of the most useful ideas behind agentic AI is that the limiting factor begins to shift.

When you are doing everything manually, the bottleneck is often execution.

There are only so many documents you can read in an evening.

There are only so many dates you can copy into a spreadsheet.

There are only so many hours in the day.

Once technology can perform more of the repetitive execution, the important human skill becomes direction.

You need to know:

  • what problem you are actually trying to solve;
  • what evidence the system needs;
  • what it is allowed to infer;
  • what it must not infer;
  • what output you need;
  • how the work should be structured;
  • how accuracy will be checked;
  • and where human judgement must take over.

That is a much more sophisticated skill than typing:

“Help me win my family court case.”

In fact, that is a poor instruction because it does not define a reliable task.

A better use of AI is usually narrower, evidence-led and capable of being checked.

9. Think like a case manager, not a passenger

There is a useful analogy here.

A good manager does not simply hand an employee a pile of papers and say:

“Sort this out.”

They explain the objective, provide the right documents, identify the constraints, specify the expected output and review what comes back.

AI agents require the same discipline.

If the system produces something poor, the question is not always:

“Why is the AI useless?”

Sometimes the better questions are:

  • Did it have the correct documents?
  • Was the instruction precise enough?
  • Did I define the scope?
  • Did I distinguish fact from allegation?
  • Did I require source references?
  • Did I tell it not to infer missing facts?
  • Did I give it a reliable way to check its work?

Those are exactly the questions litigants should be learning to ask.

10. A practical example: from chaos to an evidence schedule

Imagine you believe the other parent has repeatedly failed to facilitate ordered telephone contact.

You have:

  • a child arrangements order;
  • WhatsApp messages;
  • emails;
  • a handwritten contact diary;
  • Cafcass correspondence;
  • and perhaps several years of material.

The wrong approach would be to ask AI:

“Prove my ex is controlling and deliberately stopping contact.”

That instruction starts with a conclusion and asks the technology to build a case around it.

That is exactly how confirmation bias can be amplified.

A much safer instruction would be:

“Using only the documents supplied, create a table of every occasion on which telephone contact was due. Record whether it occurred, the evidence for that conclusion, any explanation given, whether an alternative was offered and the source document. Where the evidence conflicts, record both versions. Do not determine motive or make findings.”

That produces evidence which can then be analysed.

It does not ask the AI to decide the case.

That distinction — between extracting evidence and manufacturing conclusions — is critical.

Before asking AI to work on your family court case

  1. Define the precise task.
  2. Give it only the information needed for that task.
  3. Tell it to distinguish evidence, allegation and inference.
  4. Require source documents and dates wherever possible.
  5. Tell it not to invent missing information.
  6. Verify every important factual proposition.
  7. Independently verify every legal authority.
  8. Protect confidential and children’s information.
  9. Do not allow AI to create memories or evidence for a witness statement.
  10. Remember that you remain responsible for what you file or say in court.

11. Why I think this matters for access to justice

The discussion about AI and law is often framed around whether technology will replace lawyers.

I think that misses one of the most immediate questions.

What about the people who do not currently have a lawyer to replace?

Thousands of people enter the family courts trying to understand procedure, organise evidence and present profoundly important cases without continuous legal representation.

For them, even modest technological assistance can matter.

The Government is now openly exploring how responsible AI adoption could make legal services faster, more affordable and more accessible. Its 2026 Legal Services AI Growth Lab expressly identifies improved access to legal services and access to justice as potential benefits of legal AI.

That is important.

But access to AI is not the same thing as access to justice.

A tool is only useful if people understand its limits.

Giving an overwhelmed litigant access to a powerful AI system without teaching them how to verify it, protect their data, distinguish evidence from inference and recognise fabricated law does not solve the access-to-justice problem.

It may simply create a new one.

“The future is not simply litigants using more AI. It must be litigants learning how to use AI without surrendering judgement, evidence or responsibility.”

12. The human part becomes more important, not less

The more capable AI becomes, the more important it is to understand what only the human being can properly decide.

AI can help sort information.

It cannot experience your child’s behaviour.

It can identify apparently inconsistent accounts.

It cannot automatically determine why somebody gave them.

It can locate references to fear, contact or safeguarding within documents.

It cannot make the court’s welfare determination.

It can help you see your evidence more clearly.

It should not replace your judgement about what is important, fair, proportionate or child-focused.

And ultimately, judges make judicial decisions.

Technology should help us make the evidence easier to understand.

It should not pretend to be the judge.

Conclusion: the bottleneck is changing

The first major lesson from the development of AI agents is not really about technology.

It is about how work is organised.

Until now, many litigants in person have been limited by their own capacity to process information.

You may know that something important happened repeatedly, but not have the hours required to locate every example.

You may have the evidence but struggle to turn it into something a judge can absorb quickly.

You may spend so much time on administrative work that very little energy remains for strategy.

Agentic AI may begin to change that.

But the objective should never be to hand over responsibility for your case.

The objective is to use technology to reduce unnecessary labour so that more human attention can be directed towards the things that matter: the evidence, the children, the safeguarding issues, the law, the choices being made and the outcome being sought.

That is where I believe AI has real potential in access to justice.

Not replacing the human being.

Giving the human being more capacity to think.

Coming next in this series

In Part 2, I will look more closely at what actually makes an AI system an “agent”, the idea of an agentic spectrum, and how to work out whether a tool is merely answering you or genuinely acting on your behalf.

Sources and further reading

  • Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Judicial Guidance, updated October 2025.
  • Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).
  • Civil Justice Council, Use of AI in Preparing Court Documents, consultation update, June 2026.
  • Solicitors Regulation Authority, Misuse of AI – Warning Notice, 17 August 2026.
  • UK Government, Advisory AI Growth Lab: Legal Services, August 2026.
  • Mercor Academy, Introduction to Agents, studied September 2026.
Important: This article provides general information and discussion about AI, family court preparation and access to justice in England and Wales. It is not legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for advice on the facts of an individual case. AI systems vary considerably. Their outputs can be inaccurate, incomplete or fabricated. Court rules, orders, confidentiality requirements, data-protection obligations and the particular circumstances of your case must always be considered.

Need help turning a difficult family court case into something clear and manageable?

JSH Law provides practical, evidence-led support for litigants in person navigating family proceedings.

I can help you organise evidence, build chronologies and schedules, review Cafcass material, prepare statements and hearing documents, identify gaps and contradictions, structure appeal or application paperwork and make an overwhelming case easier to understand.

The purpose is not to manufacture a case or tell you what you want to hear. It is to help you identify the evidence, understand the issues and present your position clearly, calmly and effectively.

You can book a 15-minute initial telephone consultation below.

The initial consultation is an opportunity to identify the issue, understand what support may be useful and discuss next steps. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship.

Follow JSH Law

Follow JSH Law for practical family court guidance, evidence-led case preparation, safeguarding commentary, access-to-justice analysis and the rest of this AI & Family Justice series.

JSH Law links and social channels

“`
JSH Law Resources and Guidance for Litigants in Person – practical family court information explained in plain English.© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.

How to Use ChatGPT as a Litigant in Person: A Practical Guide to Preparing Your Court Case

/0 Comments/in /by

ChatGPT can be extraordinarily helpful when you are representing yourself in court. Used carefully, it can help a litigant in person organise evidence, understand court orders, build a chronology, prepare documents and get ready for a hearing. Used carelessly, it can invent authorities, misstate the law and alter the meaning of your evidence. This practical guide explains how to create a dedicated ChatGPT Project for your case—and how to use it without handing over responsibility for the truth.

Artificial intelligence and access to justice

How to Use ChatGPT When Representing Yourself in Court

A practical, start-to-finish guide to setting up a ChatGPT Project, organising your evidence, preparing court documents and avoiding the serious mistakes that artificial intelligence can make.

ChatGPT can be extraordinarily helpful to a litigant in person. It can explain unfamiliar language, bring order to a disorganised case file, identify gaps, create a chronology and help you express your case clearly. What it cannot do is relieve you of responsibility for the facts, the law or anything you put before the court.

Representing yourself is difficult for reasons that have little to do with intelligence. You may be dealing with a frightening court process at the same time as separation, financial pressure, allegations, housing problems or uncertainty about your children. You are expected to absorb unfamiliar rules, understand court orders, preserve evidence, meet deadlines and present the relevant parts of your case calmly.

That is precisely where ChatGPT can help. Used properly, it can operate as a patient case-management and drafting assistant: available when you need to work, able to explain the same point more than once and capable of turning a mass of documents into a structured plan.

Used carelessly, however, it can confidently invent a case, misstate a rule, change the meaning of your evidence or produce a polished document that is simply wrong. The answer is not to reject the technology. It is to use it for the right tasks, set it up carefully and verify everything that matters.

The central rule

Use ChatGPT to help you organise, understand, test and communicate your case. Do not use it as the final authority on what the law is, what the evidence proves or what you should file.

What is a litigant in person?

A litigant in person is someone who conducts court proceedings without a solicitor or barrister acting for them. You have the right to represent yourself, although you can still obtain legal advice on particular issues or instruct a lawyer for part of the case. The Government’s guidance confirms both the right to speak for yourself and the continued option of obtaining legal advice.

This guide is written principally for civil and private family proceedings in England and Wales. Different courts, tribunals and types of case have different rules. Criminal proceedings, appeals, judicial review, public law children cases and complex financial claims require particular care. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate systems.

What ChatGPT can—and cannot—do for your case

ChatGPT is useful for

  • Explaining legal and procedural language in plain English.
  • Creating a document inventory and identifying missing material.
  • Extracting deadlines from a court order for you to verify.
  • Building a sourced chronology of relevant events.
  • Creating an issues-and-evidence table.
  • Comparing two accounts and locating genuine differences.
  • Helping to structure correspondence and draft court documents.
  • Testing the weaknesses in your case and the likely counterarguments.
  • Preparing speaking notes, questions and a hearing checklist.

ChatGPT is not

  • A solicitor, barrister, judge or substitute for legal advice.
  • A reliable source of case citations without independent checking.
  • A witness to what happened.
  • Entitled to fill gaps in your evidence with plausible wording.
  • A secure replacement for your own master case file and backups.
  • A court diary on which you should rely for critical deadlines.
  • A guarantee that a document complies with the applicable rules.
  • A way to predict with certainty what a judge will decide.

The best description is litigation support assistant. ChatGPT can help you do the work more systematically, but you remain the person conducting the case.

Why you should create a dedicated ChatGPT Project

Do not run an entire case through one ordinary, ever-lengthening chat. Create a dedicated Project for that one case. Projects are designed to keep relevant chats, uploaded files and project-specific instructions together. ChatGPT can then work with the context inside the Project as the case develops.

When creating it, choose project-only memory if that option is available. That keeps the Project’s context within the case rather than drawing upon conversations outside it. OpenAI’s current guidance says project-only memory must be selected when a new Project is created; an existing Project cannot simply be converted afterwards.

Keep the Project private

Do not create an open sharing link and do not invite anybody unless you have deliberately decided that they are entitled to see every chat, file and instruction available to them. A court case Project may contain intensely private information about you, children and third parties.

Before uploading anything: privacy, confidentiality and redaction

This is the step too many people skip. Court documents may contain personal data, confidential information, medical material, financial records and information about children. Family proceedings involving children are also subject to specific restrictions on communicating information from the proceedings. Do not assume that information may be uploaded to a consumer AI service merely because you are using it privately.

Change your ChatGPT data setting

On a personal ChatGPT account, go to Settings > Data Controls and turn off “Improve the model for everyone”. OpenAI states that new conversations will then remain in your history but will not be used to train ChatGPT. This is sensible, but it is not the same as a legal assurance that every document is appropriate to upload.

Use data minimisation

Upload only what is reasonably necessary for the task. Work from redacted copies and retain the untouched originals separately. Depending on the case, consider removing:

  • children’s full names, dates of birth, schools and addresses;
  • home addresses, telephone numbers and private email addresses;
  • bank details, signatures, passport numbers and official identifiers;
  • medical identifiers or medical history unrelated to the issue;
  • unnecessary information about third parties; and
  • legally privileged or confidential material you may not be entitled to disclose.

Use a proper PDF-redaction tool. Drawing a black rectangle over text may leave the underlying words recoverable. Never redact your only copy of a document and never alter an original piece of evidence.

Particular warning for family cases

Information relating to children proceedings may be subject to statutory, procedural and court-ordered restrictions. Check the order and the relevant Family Procedure Rules before sharing material with any person or external service. If you are uncertain, obtain legal advice or seek the court’s direction. Protect the child’s identity even where you believe the other adults already know it.

Project files are intended to persist. OpenAI’s current retention guidance says files uploaded to a Project are retained until the Project is deleted and are then scheduled for removal within 30 days, subject to limited legal or security exceptions. Keep your own case record and delete the Project when it is no longer properly required.

How to set up your litigation Project from the beginning

1Create a neutral, private Project

Select New Project in ChatGPT’s sidebar. Give it a neutral name, such as:

Family Court – Case AB12C345 – Working File

Avoid placing a child’s full name or highly sensitive allegation in the title. Select project-only memory at creation and do not share the Project.

2Add strong Project instructions

Project instructions matter because they tell ChatGPT how to behave throughout the case. Open the Project menu, select Project settings and adapt the following:

You are assisting me as a litigation support and case-management assistant. I am a litigant in person in [TYPE OF CASE] in [COURT OR TRIBUNAL] in England and Wales. You are not my lawyer. Help me organise, understand, test and communicate my own case. Never invent or assume a fact, date, quotation, document, allegation, case, citation, rule, deadline or procedural requirement. Always distinguish between: 1. an agreed fact; 2. my allegation or account; 3. the other party’s allegation or account; 4. documentary or witness evidence; 5. an inference; 6. a legal proposition; and 7. a practical suggestion. When using my documents, identify the source by file name and page or paragraph wherever possible. If a file is unclear, incomplete, illegible or missing, say so. Do not reconstruct missing text. Do not treat an allegation as proved merely because it is repeated. Identify evidence that supports and undermines my position. Point out inconsistencies, procedural risks, missing evidence and the strongest reasonable argument against me. For legal research, use current official primary sources for England and Wales. Give a working link and the exact rule, statutory provision, neutral citation and relevant paragraph. Never invent an authority. Tell me expressly when a proposition has not been independently verified. When helping with a witness statement, preserve my own recollection and meaning. Do not embellish, strengthen, dilute or add evidence. Identify where a statement is based on memory, information from another person, belief or inference. When drafting, use clear British English, short numbered paragraphs, neutral language and the correct court-document structure. In a children case, remain child-focused and avoid inflammatory language. Before producing anything for filing, ask me to confirm the court, case number, hearing, purpose of the document, applicable order or directions, deadline, page limit and required format. Mark every document DRAFT until I confirm it has been checked.
Why these instructions work

They tell the system to show its workings, preserve uncertainty and separate evidence from argument. Those disciplines are far more valuable than asking it to “act as the best barrister in England”. A grand title does not make an AI answer accurate.

3Keep a separate master file outside ChatGPT

Your ChatGPT Project is a working tool, not the official home of your case. Maintain a separate, backed-up folder containing the documents exactly as received or filed. A simple structure is:

  1. 00 – Master index and case dashboard
  2. 01 – Applications and statements of case
  3. 02 – Sealed court orders and directions
  4. 03 – Correspondence
  5. 04 – Evidence and exhibits
  6. 05 – Witness statements
  7. 06 – Law and verified authorities
  8. 07 – Hearing documents and bundles
  9. 08 – Drafts and superseded versions

Name files consistently, for example:

2026-07-12 – Sealed order – directions following FHDRA.pdf 2026-07-16 – Email – Respondent to Applicant – proposed holiday contact.pdf

Do not overwrite filed documents. Mark versions clearly: DRAFT v1, DRAFT v2 and FINAL FILED 18-07-2026. Keep screenshots and message exports in their original form with dates, context and metadata wherever possible.

4Upload the foundation documents first

Do not begin by tipping hundreds of files into the Project. Start with the documents that define the proceedings:

  1. the current application, claim, defence or response;
  2. all current sealed court orders, beginning with the most recent;
  3. the parties’ principal statements or pleaded positions;
  4. the key evidence needed to understand the immediate issues; and
  5. any applicable court guidance or directions supplied specifically for the hearing.

Make sure scanned PDFs are searchable and legible. If a document contains handwritten notes, missing pages or poor scans, tell ChatGPT not to guess.

5Ask for a document audit before analysis

Before advising me on organisation or drafting, create a document inventory. For each uploaded file, list: • the exact file name; • document type; • date; • author or issuing court; • whether it appears complete and legible; • its purpose in the proceedings; • any deadline or hearing date stated; and • any apparent duplicate or later version. Do not infer missing pages or wording. Identify anything you cannot reliably read. Then tell me which essential foundation documents appear to be missing.

Check the resulting inventory yourself. If ChatGPT has misunderstood a file, correct the record immediately.

Create the five working documents that control the case

A well-run case is not a pile of evidence. It is a structured explanation of the issues, the relevant facts, the evidence supporting those facts, the applicable law and the order the court is being asked to make. These five living documents provide that structure.

Working document What it should contain Why it matters
Case dashboard Court, case number, parties, stage, next hearing, current orders, deadlines, applications and orders sought. Gives you one reliable control page for the case.
Chronology Date, event, source, relevance and whether the event is agreed or disputed. Prevents the case becoming an unfocused life history.
Issues list The questions the court actually needs to decide. Keeps evidence and submissions tied to a judicial decision.
Evidence matrix Issue, proposition, supporting evidence, contrary evidence, gaps and relevance. Shows what can be proved rather than what is merely believed.
Directions tracker Exact requirement, responsible person, deadline, status and proof of compliance. Reduces the risk of overlooking an order or filing date.

Prompt for a sourced chronology

Create a working chronology using only the uploaded documents. Use columns for date and time, event, exact source, page or paragraph, relevance to an identified issue, and status: AGREED, MY ACCOUNT, OTHER PARTY’S ACCOUNT, DISPUTED or UNCLEAR. Do not merge competing accounts into a single fact. Do not infer a precise date where the evidence gives only an approximate period. Put undated events in a separate section.

Prompt for an issues-and-evidence matrix

Act as a neutral case analyst. Create an issues-and-evidence matrix with columns for: 1. the issue the court may need to decide; 2. my position; 3. the other party’s position; 4. evidence supporting my position; 5. evidence that weakens or contradicts my position; 6. missing evidence or unanswered questions; 7. the legal test, marked UNVERIFIED unless supported by an official source; and 8. the precise order or finding I seek. Do not decide which witness is truthful. Do not describe an allegation as a fact.

Prompt for court orders and deadlines

Using the sealed orders only, extract every operative direction that still appears relevant. Quote the exact wording, identify the source file and paragraph, state who must comply, calculate the stated deadline, and flag any ambiguity. Do not treat your calculation as final. Finish with a list headed “Deadlines the user must verify against the sealed order”.
Never delegate a deadline to AI

Read every sealed order yourself. Enter confirmed dates in a proper calendar with advance reminders. If an order is unclear, obtain procedural or legal assistance and, where necessary, seek clarification or directions from the court. “ChatGPT calculated it differently” will not remedy non-compliance.

Use separate chats for separate jobs

Within the Project, create clearly named chats rather than allowing one conversation to become unmanageable:

  • 01 – Case dashboard and directions
  • 02 – Document inventory
  • 03 – Chronology
  • 04 – Issues and evidence
  • 05 – Legal research
  • 06 – Witness statement drafting
  • 07 – Position statement and order sought
  • 08 – Correspondence
  • 09 – Hearing preparation

This makes it easier to find the reasoning behind a draft and to start again when a conversation has gone in the wrong direction. Save only checked, durable outputs back to the Project sources.

Legal research: the area of greatest danger

ChatGPT can help you formulate a research question and locate potential sources. It must not be trusted to supply legal authorities from memory.

In Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), the Divisional Court addressed false authorities and inaccurate material placed before the court. The judgment stated plainly that large language models such as ChatGPT are not capable of conducting reliable legal research without proper checking. In one of the matters, citations included a non-existent case while the neutral citation belonged to an entirely unrelated decision.

The risk is not theoretical. AI can produce a case name, citation and quotation that look entirely convincing. The more polished the answer, the easier it is to lower your guard.

You are responsible for what you give the court

Current judicial guidance recognises that unrepresented litigants may use AI and may not appreciate its tendency to make errors. It also makes clear that the litigant remains responsible for the material put before the court. False material can damage your credibility, waste court time, harm your case and expose you to serious procedural consequences.

A safer legal-research protocol

  1. Ask ChatGPT to identify the precise legal question.
  2. Ask it to search official primary sources, not merely generate an answer.
  3. Open the source yourself.
  4. Confirm that the case or rule exists and is current.
  5. Read the relevant paragraph in context.
  6. Check that the authority actually supports the proposition.
  7. Check whether it has been appealed, amended, distinguished or superseded.
  8. Record the verified source and the date you checked it.

For England and Wales, begin with official sources such as legislation.gov.uk, the official Civil and Family Procedure Rules, and Find Case Law at The National Archives.

Research the following question for proceedings in England and Wales: [INSERT PRECISE QUESTION]. Use current official primary sources only: legislation.gov.uk, justice.gov.uk procedural rules and practice directions, judiciary.uk, and caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk. For each legal proposition: • provide the exact statutory provision, rule or neutral citation; • provide a working link; • identify the relevant paragraph or sub-paragraph; • explain whether the source is binding, persuasive or procedural guidance; • state the date on which the source was checked; and • say expressly if you cannot verify it. Do not invent or reconstruct a citation. Do not use a solicitor’s website or an AI summary as authority. Give me a verification checklist before suggesting that I include any proposition in a court document.

Drafting a witness statement without changing the evidence

A witness statement is evidence. It is not an opportunity for ChatGPT to create the most compelling version of events. Your evidence must remain your own recollection, expressed accurately and with any genuine uncertainty preserved.

AI may help with structure, grammar, repetition and chronology. It must not:

  • add a fact you did not provide;
  • turn an approximate memory into a precise date or quotation;
  • convert suspicion or inference into direct knowledge;
  • embellish an event to make it sound more serious;
  • remove qualifications that are important to accuracy;
  • describe another person’s motive as fact; or
  • insert legal argument into factual evidence without good reason.

A safer method is to prepare your own factual account first. Then ask ChatGPT to identify gaps and ask neutral, non-leading questions. Only after you answer those questions should it help organise the material.

Help me organise my own evidence into a draft witness statement. Do not add to or strengthen my account. First, review my notes and ask one neutral clarification question at a time about unclear dates, who was present, what I personally saw or heard, and which document supports the event. Preserve words such as “approximately”, “I cannot now recall”, “I understood” and “I believe” where they are accurate. Distinguish my direct knowledge from information given to me by somebody else. Flag every sentence that contains an inference, allegation, diagnosis, legal conclusion or statement about another person’s motive. When drafting, use numbered paragraphs and mark the document DRAFT. After the draft, produce a fact-check table showing the source supplied by me for each material paragraph.
A developing area of court procedure

In March 2026, the Civil Justice Council published an interim report and consultation on AI in the preparation of court documents. Its immediate proposals focus principally on legal representatives and experts rather than regulating litigants in person, but the report highlights the particular sensitivity of using AI to generate or rephrase witness evidence. Check for later rules or guidance before filing.

Position statements, applications and written submissions

ChatGPT is often very good at turning long, emotional notes into a shorter and more usable structure. That is valuable, particularly in family proceedings where a parent may understandably want to explain everything that has happened. The discipline is to retain what helps the judge decide the issues and remove what merely expresses anger.

Before drafting, give ChatGPT:

  • the type and purpose of the hearing;
  • the order listing it and any specific directions;
  • the live issues;
  • what has changed since the last hearing;
  • the evidence relied upon;
  • the other party’s position, stated fairly;
  • the precise orders sought; and
  • any page limit or deadline.
Using the verified case dashboard, current sealed order, issues list and evidence matrix, prepare a concise DRAFT position statement for [HEARING]. Structure it as: 1. purpose of the hearing; 2. brief procedural background; 3. current position and developments; 4. live issues for the court; 5. my proposals on each issue; 6. the precise orders sought; and 7. a short conclusion. Use neutral, non-inflammatory language. Do not introduce a new fact or authority. Cite the source file and page for material factual assertions in a separate verification table. Keep within [NUMBER] pages and comply with [IDENTIFY ORDER OR PRACTICE DIRECTION].

Ask ChatGPT to test your case, not simply agree with you

AI assistants are naturally responsive to the way a question is framed. If you ask for arguments proving that the other party is unreasonable, you are likely to receive them. That can reinforce a mistaken or one-sided view.

Use prompts that force a neutral review:

Assume you are a neutral judge who has read both parties’ evidence. What are the three weakest parts of my position? What evidence is missing? Which of my proposed findings rely on inference rather than direct evidence? What is the strongest reasonable explanation the other party could give? What narrower order might the court consider proportionate?

Sometimes the most helpful answer is that a point is irrelevant, the evidence is weak or the order sought is unrealistic. That is useful preparation, not failure.

Comparing statements and messages properly

ChatGPT can compare long documents much faster than most people, but it should not be invited to label every difference a lie. Memory differs, wording changes and two people can genuinely perceive an event differently.

Compare [DOCUMENT A] with [DOCUMENT B]. Identify only material differences. For each one, quote the exact short passage, give the page or paragraph, and classify it as: • direct contradiction; • different level of detail; • possible omission; • ambiguity; • change that may be explained by timing or context; or • not a genuine inconsistency. Do not infer dishonesty, motive or intent. Explain why the difference may matter to a live issue.

For message evidence, preserve the full conversation and original export. A selected screenshot may hide context. Ask ChatGPT to identify the message immediately before and after any passage you intend to rely upon.

Preparing for the hearing

ChatGPT can be particularly helpful in the final week, when anxiety makes it difficult to see the case clearly. Ask it to prepare:

  • a one-page hearing plan;
  • a 30-second introduction explaining who you are and what the hearing concerns;
  • the three most important points, each linked to evidence;
  • a numbered list of the exact orders you seek;
  • likely questions from the judge and truthful, concise answers;
  • the weaknesses the other party is likely to raise;
  • questions for another witness, phrased as questions rather than speeches;
  • a list of documents and page references you need at hand; and
  • a practical checklist covering time, location, technology and papers.
Run a hearing-preparation exercise. Use only the verified documents in this Project. Ask me one realistic judicial question at a time. After each answer, tell me whether I answered the question directly, relied on unsupported facts, became argumentative or omitted the order I am asking the court to make. Do not coach me to give evidence that is not true.

Prepare an offline copy of your key documents and speaking notes. Do not assume ChatGPT, internet access or your telephone will be available or permitted during the hearing.

Never record a hearing or feed it into AI without express permission

Unauthorised audio recording of court proceedings may amount to contempt of court, and photography or video in court is generally prohibited. Do not use a voice tool, transcription service or AI meeting assistant to listen to a hearing unless the court has expressly authorised it. This applies to remote hearings as well as attendance in a court building.

A sensible quality-control check before anything is filed

Every AI-assisted document should pass three separate checks.

1. The factual check

  • Is every fact accurate?
  • Is an allegation clearly identified as an allegation?
  • Can every important assertion be traced to evidence?
  • Are dates, names, quotations and page references correct?
  • Has the wording changed the meaning of your evidence?

2. The legal and procedural check

  • Does every cited case exist on an authoritative database?
  • Does the relevant paragraph support the proposition?
  • Is the legislation or procedural rule current?
  • Does the document comply with the latest order, page limit and deadline?
  • Is the correct statement of truth or other required wording included?

3. The strategic and human check

  • Does the document answer the question the court must decide?
  • Is it proportionate and concise?
  • Does it acknowledge material evidence that goes against you?
  • Is the order sought precise, realistic and lawful?
  • Does the language sound like you and remain something you can honestly adopt?
Use a lawyer where it will have the greatest impact

Representing yourself does not have to mean receiving no legal help. If funds are limited, consider paying for a focused review of your case theory, draft statement, settlement proposal or hearing plan. A short conference at the right stage may prevent an expensive or irreversible mistake.

The mistakes to avoid

  • Do not upload the entire unredacted case file without considering confidentiality and necessity.
  • Do not ask ChatGPT to “find cases that prove I am right” and paste the result into submissions.
  • Do not let it turn allegations into established facts.
  • Do not ask it to make your evidence sound stronger or more dramatic.
  • Do not rely on an AI-generated deadline, court form or procedural rule without verification.
  • Do not use one enormous chat for every aspect of the proceedings.
  • Do not replace original evidence with an AI summary.
  • Do not file a document you have not read, checked and fully understood.
  • Do not use AI in the hearing to record, transcribe or transmit proceedings without express permission.
  • Do not mistake fluent language for sound legal analysis.

Used well, ChatGPT can improve access to justice

The justice system requires litigants to present relevant facts and evidence within formal procedures. For a person without representation, the practical barrier is often not the absence of a genuine case but the difficulty of organising and communicating it.

ChatGPT can reduce that barrier. It can make an order easier to understand, expose gaps before a hearing, help a distressed parent write calmly, and turn a chaotic file into a chronology and evidence matrix. It can also help a litigant see that a favourite argument is weak, that a document does not prove what they thought it proved, or that compromise may be the better course.

That is real value. But the value comes from disciplined use. The litigant must remain the source of the evidence, the decision-maker about their case and the person responsible for every word put before the court.

The best way to think about it

Let ChatGPT help you carry the administrative and analytical weight of litigation. Do not let it take control of the truth.

Official sources and further reading

Would you like help organising your case?

If you are representing yourself in family court and need a clearer, more structured way forward, you can book a 15-minute initial telephone consultation with JSH Law.

We can briefly discuss where your case has reached, the immediate difficulties you are facing and the type of practical litigation support that may be suitable.

The initial call does not constitute legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship.

Important: This article provides general information for England and Wales and is not legal advice. Court rules, practice directions, technology and individual orders change. Always check the current rules and the orders made in your own case. If your case involves urgent safeguarding, an injunction, criminal allegations, international issues, loss of your home, contempt, an appeal or another serious consequence, seek qualified legal advice promptly.

JSH Law Resources and Guidance for Litigants in Person – practical family court information explained in plain English.© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.

Advicenow Review: A Lifeline for Litigants in Person?

/0 Comments/in , /by

For many litigants in person, the hardest part of family court is not simply the law itself — it is understanding the process. Court forms, procedural terminology, safeguarding issues, bundles, deadlines and hearings can quickly become overwhelming for people without legal representation. In that landscape, free practical resources have become increasingly important. Advicenow is one of the best-known access-to-justice platforms in the UK, providing plain-English legal guidance designed specifically for ordinary people navigating the justice system without lawyers.


Advicenow Review for Litigants in Person: One of the Best Free Legal Resources in the UK?

Part 2 of the JSH Law Legal Tech & AI for Litigants in Person Series

By Jessica Susan Hill | JSH Law

When people think about legal technology, they often imagine artificial intelligence, futuristic software and automated legal robots.

But some of the most valuable tools available to litigants in person are not AI-powered at all.

Sometimes the most important thing is simply clear, reliable, practical guidance written in plain English by people who genuinely understand how overwhelming the court system can be.

That is where Advicenow has become one of the most important access-to-justice resources in the UK.

For many litigants in person, Advicenow quietly fills a gap that the justice system itself often leaves wide open.

It does not replace legal advice.

It does not replace representation.

But it does something increasingly valuable in modern family court:

It helps ordinary people understand what is happening to them.

What Is Advicenow?

Advicenow is a UK-based public legal education platform run by Law for Life, a charity focused on improving access to justice and legal capability.

The platform provides practical legal guidance designed specifically for ordinary people rather than lawyers.

Its resources cover areas including:

  • family law;
  • children arrangements;
  • domestic abuse;
  • housing;
  • employment;
  • benefits;
  • debt;
  • consumer rights;
  • small claims;
  • court preparation;
  • and representing yourself in court.

Unlike many legal websites, Advicenow is not written primarily to impress professionals.

It is written to help people survive legal problems.

Why Advicenow Matters More Than Ever

The rise in litigants in person has fundamentally changed the landscape of family court.

Large numbers of people now find themselves navigating:

  • child arrangements proceedings;
  • safeguarding allegations;
  • fact-finding hearings;
  • non-molestation applications;
  • enforcement proceedings;
  • CAFCASS involvement;
  • court bundles;
  • position statements;
  • and procedural deadlines — alone.

At the same time:

  • legal aid remains heavily restricted;
  • family law representation is expensive;
  • court systems are increasingly digital;
  • and procedural expectations remain extremely high.

The result is that many litigants in person enter court with little understanding of:

  • what documents they need;
  • what the court expects;
  • what a hearing will look like;
  • how evidence should be presented;
  • or even what the legal language means.

Advicenow directly addresses that gap.

What Advicenow Does Exceptionally Well

1. Plain-English Explanations

This is probably Advicenow’s greatest strength.

Many legal resources unintentionally assume prior legal knowledge.

Advicenow generally does not.

Its guides explain:

  • court terminology;
  • legal processes;
  • procedural stages;
  • and practical steps

in language ordinary people can realistically understand.

That sounds simple.

In reality, it is one of the hardest things to do well in legal communication.

2. Practical Court Preparation Guidance

Advicenow is at its strongest when it focuses on practical litigation support.

Particularly valuable resources include:

These are genuinely useful resources.

Particularly for overwhelmed litigants trying to make sense of unfamiliar processes.

3. Emotional Accessibility

This is an underrated point.

Many legal websites feel cold, intimidating or transactional.

Advicenow often feels written by people who understand:

  • stress;
  • fear;
  • confusion;
  • and procedural overwhelm.

That tone matters.

Especially in family proceedings involving children, safeguarding and domestic abuse.

4. It Helps Reduce Procedural Chaos

One of the biggest problems litigants in person face is not necessarily legal argument.

It is procedural chaos.

Missed deadlines.

Wrong forms.

Disorganised evidence.

Poorly structured statements.

Bundles without pagination.

Irrelevant material.

Emails sent emotionally rather than strategically.

Advicenow helps reduce some of that chaos by providing structure.

Where Advicenow Cannot Replace Human Support

This is where honesty matters.

Even excellent legal information websites have limits.

Advicenow cannot:

  • review your evidence in detail;
  • identify strategic weaknesses in your case;
  • prepare bespoke chronologies;
  • draft your statement personally;
  • organise thousands of pages of evidence;
  • prepare your hearing strategy;
  • cross-examine witnesses for you;
  • or emotionally support you through litigation in real time.

This is important because some litigants mistakenly believe that reading legal guidance is the same as being strategically prepared.

It is not.

Information helps.

But applying information to a live, emotionally charged, fact-specific family court case is much harder.

The Hidden Problem Many Litigants Still Face

There is another issue that often goes unspoken.

Many litigants in person do not merely lack information.

They lack:

  • confidence;
  • organisation;
  • procedural understanding;
  • time;
  • emotional capacity;
  • and the ability to step back objectively from their own case.

Even with excellent resources like Advicenow, many people still struggle to:

  • identify relevance;
  • present evidence proportionately;
  • structure arguments;
  • or focus on what the court actually needs to determine.

This is often where practical litigation support becomes valuable.

Advicenow vs AI Legal Tools

One of the most interesting developments in legal tech is the contrast between:

  • traditional public legal education platforms like Advicenow;
  • and emerging AI systems like ChatGPT and Claude.

Advicenow’s strengths:

  • human-written;
  • curated;
  • reliable;
  • carefully structured;
  • non-hallucinatory;
  • practical;
  • trusted.

AI’s strengths:

  • speed;
  • customisation;
  • document drafting;
  • summarisation;
  • chronology generation;
  • interactive explanations.

In reality, the future likely lies in combining both approaches.

Reliable human-created legal guidance combined with carefully supervised AI assistance may ultimately become one of the most effective access-to-justice models available.

Can Advicenow Replace a Solicitor or Barrister?

No.

But that is not really its purpose.

Advicenow is best understood as:

A bridge between complete confusion and informed participation in the justice system.

That is enormously valuable.

Particularly for people who:

  • cannot afford representation;
  • are waiting for legal advice;
  • need urgent procedural guidance;
  • or simply need to understand what is happening.

The Bigger Access to Justice Issue

Advicenow’s importance also says something uncomfortable about the modern justice system.

People are increasingly dependent on free online resources because formal legal support is financially out of reach for many ordinary families.

That creates a strange situation:

  • courts expect increasingly professional standards;
  • while many litigants have no realistic access to professional representation.

Platforms like Advicenow are therefore doing work that arguably helps prevent even greater pressure on an already overstretched justice system.

Because informed litigants generally:

  • prepare better;
  • understand procedure more clearly;
  • make fewer avoidable mistakes;
  • and communicate more effectively.

JSH Law Practical Verdict

JSH Law Rating: Highly Recommended for Litigants in Person

Best for:

  • understanding family court procedure;
  • learning legal terminology;
  • basic court preparation;
  • bundle guidance;
  • practical legal education;
  • reducing overwhelm.

Not a replacement for:

  • bespoke legal advice;
  • evidence strategy;
  • hearing preparation support;
  • complex safeguarding analysis;
  • or case-specific procedural assistance.

Final Thoughts

There is a tendency in legal technology discussions to focus only on AI.

But genuine access to justice is often improved not by flashy technology, but by clarity.

Advicenow succeeds because it does something many legal systems fail to do:

It explains things clearly to ordinary people at moments of high stress and vulnerability.

That is not a small achievement.

For litigants in person, particularly in family court, knowledge alone will not solve every problem.

But good information, clearly explained, can make the system feel less frightening, less chaotic and more navigable.

And sometimes, that is the difference between complete procedural overwhelm and someone finally feeling able to take the next step.

About the Author

Jessica Susan Hill is studying towards SQE1 and SQE2 with BPP Law School and has over 10 years’ experience litigating in person and helping others navigate family court proceedings.

She is the founder of JSH Law and has a particular interest in legal technology, AI, access to justice and practical litigation support for litigants in person.

JSH Law provides practical support including chronology building, evidence organisation, court document preparation assistance and hearing preparation support for litigants in person across England and Wales.

Website: www.jshlaw.co.uk

Part of the JSH Law Legal Tech & AI for Litigants in Person Series

  • Part 1 — The Truth About Using ChatGPT for Family Court as a Litigant in Person
  • Part 2 — Advicenow Review for Litigants in Person
  • Coming next: CourtNav and the Rise of Digital Injunction Applications
  • Coming next: Claude vs ChatGPT for Family Court Preparation

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd provides litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person. JSH Law Ltd is not authorised or regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. This article is provided for general educational and public-interest purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

JSH Law Resources and Guidance for Litigants in Person – practical family court information explained in plain English.© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.

Legal Tech for Litigants in Person: The Tools That Can Help You Survive Court Without a Solicitor

/0 Comments/in , /by

Representing yourself in court is not just legally difficult. It is administratively, emotionally and practically exhausting. Litigants in person are expected to manage forms, evidence, deadlines, bundles, statements, hearings and legal arguments, often while under enormous personal pressure. The right technology will not replace legal advice or court experience, but it can help bring order to the chaos.

Legal Tech, AI and Practical Tools for Litigants in Person: A JSH Law Market Map

Last updated: May 2026

Nearly every litigant in person eventually discovers the same hard truth: the court process is not designed around ordinary people trying to manage their own case. It is document-heavy, deadline-driven, procedurally technical and emotionally exhausting.

Legal tech will not replace proper legal judgment. It will not turn a weak case into a strong one. It will not remove the need to understand evidence, procedure, safeguarding, welfare or proportionality. But used carefully, the right tools can make a real difference.

For litigants in person, the most useful technology is not always labelled “legal tech”. The best practical toolkit usually combines:

  • official court and government resources;
  • free legal information and guidance;
  • AI drafting and research tools;
  • document and PDF software;
  • chronology and evidence management tools;
  • transcription tools;
  • task management systems;
  • wellbeing, safety and support resources.

This article sets out a working market map of tools currently available to litigants in person, particularly those navigating family court, civil court, domestic abuse proceedings, children matters, financial remedy issues, enforcement applications and other court processes without full representation.

1. Official Court and Government Tools

These are the first places a litigant in person should usually check. They are not always easy to navigate, but they are authoritative.

Tool / Resource Use Link
GOV.UK Court and Tribunal Forms Official court forms across family, civil, tribunal and other proceedings. Court and tribunal forms
Family Court Forms Forms including C100, FL401, Form E and other family court documents. Family law forms
Help with Fees / EX160 Fee remission for people on low income or certain benefits. Apply for help with court fees
Online Divorce Service Digital divorce applications. Apply for a divorce
Money Claim Online Online civil money claims. Money Claim Online
Online Civil Money Claims Digital service for making or responding to money claims. Make a money claim online
Judiciary Advice for Litigants in Person Official court guidance for people representing themselves. Advice for litigants in person
Family Proceedings Bundle Guide for Litigants in Person Essential guidance on preparing family court bundles. Preparing court bundles for family proceedings

2. Free Legal Information and LiP Support

These resources are particularly useful for litigants in person who need practical explanations rather than legal theory.

Organisation / Tool Use Link
Advicenow Excellent practical guides for family, civil and court preparation. Advicenow
Advicenow Family Court Guide Plain-English guidance for representing yourself in family court. Representing yourself in family court
Advicenow Trial Bundle Guide Practical guidance on preparing a court bundle and index. How to prepare a trial bundle and index
Support Through Court Practical and emotional support for people facing civil and family courts alone. Support Through Court
CourtNav Online tool for completing FL401 non-molestation and occupation order applications. Apply for an injunction with CourtNav
FLOWS Legal support for women experiencing domestic abuse. FLOWS
Child Law Advice Information on children law, child arrangements and family court. Child Law Advice
LawWorks Free legal advice clinics and pro bono support routes. LawWorks legal advice for individuals
Citizens Advice General legal and practical advice. Citizens Advice
Rights of Women Legal information for women, particularly in family law, domestic abuse and immigration contexts. Rights of Women
Family Rights Group Support for families involved with children’s services. Family Rights Group
Resolution Family law guidance and professional directory. Resolution
Legal Choices Consumer information about legal services. Legal Choices

3. Legal Research Tools

Research is where litigants in person need to be especially careful. Reading case law without understanding procedure, facts, context or hierarchy can be dangerous. However, the following resources are useful when used responsibly.

Tool Use Link
BAILII Free access to British and Irish case law. BAILII
The National Archives Find Case Law Official free access to court judgments and tribunal decisions. Find Case Law
Legislation.gov.uk UK statutes and statutory instruments. Legislation.gov.uk
Family Procedure Rules Rules and Practice Directions for family proceedings. Family Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Rules Rules and Practice Directions for civil proceedings. Civil Procedure Rules
Judiciary.uk Judgments, guidance, speeches and practice materials. Judiciary.uk
ICLR Law reports and case summaries. ICLR
Westlaw UK Professional legal research platform. Westlaw UK
LexisNexis UK Professional legal research and practical guidance. LexisNexis UK
vLex Legal research platform with AI functionality. vLex
Practical Law Professional legal guidance, checklists and templates. Practical Law UK

4. AI Tools for Litigants in Person

AI can be extremely useful for litigants in person, but it must be used carefully. It can help organise thoughts, draft chronologies, simplify legal language, prepare questions, summarise documents and identify missing evidence. But it can also produce errors, invent legal authorities and sound confident when it is wrong.

The Law Society has warned that generative AI creates real risks, including accuracy, confidentiality and data protection issues. Its guidance can be found here: Generative AI: the essentials.

Tool Possible LiP Use Link
ChatGPT Drafting, summarising, chronology building, issue spotting and plain-English explanations. ChatGPT
Claude Long document analysis, careful drafting and summarising. Claude
Google Gemini Research, drafting and Google Workspace integration. Google Gemini
Microsoft Copilot Support within Word, Outlook, Teams and Microsoft 365. Microsoft Copilot
Perplexity Web research with linked sources. Perplexity
NotebookLM Summarising and querying uploaded documents. NotebookLM
Genie AI Legal document templates and AI drafting. Genie AI
Lawhive AI-supported legal services marketplace. Lawhive
Garfield AI AI-assisted small claims / debt recovery support. Garfield AI
DoNotPay Consumer rights and automated complaint-style tools. Use with caution. DoNotPay
Legal Utopia UK legal information and legal triage. Legal Utopia

A warning about AI and court documents

AI should not be treated as a lawyer, a judge, a legal researcher or a source of truth. It is a tool. Anything produced by AI must be checked.

In particular, litigants in person should never put a case citation, quote, legal test or authority into a court document unless they have checked it against a reliable source such as Find Case Law, BAILII, an official court judgment or a professional legal database.

The safest approach is:

  • use AI to organise and draft;
  • use official sources to verify;
  • do not upload sensitive documents unless you understand the privacy implications;
  • do not rely on AI-generated case law without checking it;
  • remember that the person signing the document is responsible for its contents.

5. Document Drafting and Formatting Tools

Most litigants in person underestimate how much of court preparation is document work. Clear formatting, pagination, headings, exhibits and structure matter.

Tool Use Link
Microsoft Word Statements, position statements, draft orders and submissions. Microsoft Word
Google Docs Collaborative drafting and sharing. Google Docs
Grammarly Grammar, tone and clarity checks. Grammarly
Hemingway Editor Plain-English editing and readability. Hemingway Editor
LanguageTool Grammar and style checking. LanguageTool
Scrivener Long-form drafting and complex narratives. Scrivener
Canva Docs Visual documents and explanatory graphics. Not suitable for formal court bundles. Canva Docs

6. PDF, Bundle and Evidence Tools

Bundles are one of the biggest practical barriers for litigants in person. A litigant may have strong evidence, but if it is not organised, paginated and easy for the court to navigate, it can lose impact.

Tool Use Link
Adobe Acrobat Pro PDF editing, paginating, bookmarking, merging and OCR. Adobe Acrobat Pro
PDF Expert PDF editing and annotation, especially on Mac/iPad. PDF Expert
Foxit PDF Editor PDF editing, compression and OCR. Foxit PDF Editor
Smallpdf Merge, split, compress and convert PDFs. Smallpdf
iLovePDF PDF merging, splitting, compression and conversion. iLovePDF
Sejda Online PDF editing. Sejda
Bundledocs Professional document bundling platform. Bundledocs
Zylpha Bundling Legal bundle preparation software. Zylpha
HyperLaw Litigation document and bundling software. HyperLaw
Case Center / CaseLines Digital evidence and court bundle platform used in some courts and jurisdictions. Case Center

7. Evidence Capture and Message Export Tools

In family proceedings, civil disputes, domestic abuse cases and enforcement applications, evidence is often buried in phones, emails, screenshots, WhatsApp messages, social media posts and PDFs. The problem is rarely that there is no evidence. The problem is that the evidence is scattered.

Tool Use Link
WhatsApp Export Chat Export WhatsApp conversations for review and chronology work. Export chat history
iMazing Export iPhone messages, WhatsApp data and device content. iMazing
Decipher TextMessage Export and print iPhone text messages. Decipher TextMessage
TouchCopy Export iPhone messages, music, photos and files. TouchCopy
Google Takeout Download Google account data. Google Takeout
Meta Download Your Information Download Facebook and Instagram account data. Download your Facebook information
Microsoft Lens Scan documents using a phone. Microsoft Lens
Adobe Scan Mobile document scanning. Adobe Scan
Scanner Pro Mobile scanning app. Scanner Pro

8. Chronology, Timeline and Case Organisation Tools

A good chronology can transform a case. It helps the litigant, the adviser and the court see the pattern, the sequence and the consequences. For litigants in person, chronology work is often one of the highest-value tasks.

Tool Use Link
Microsoft Excel Chronologies, schedules, Scott schedules and evidence logs. Microsoft Excel
Google Sheets Collaborative chronologies and evidence schedules. Google Sheets
Airtable Evidence database, chronology tracker and case management workspace. Airtable
Notion Case dashboard, notes, tasks and document organisation. Notion
Obsidian Linked notes and complex case mapping. Obsidian
Trello Simple visual task boards. Trello
Asana Task management and deadline tracking. Asana
ClickUp Task management, document tracking and workflows. ClickUp
Monday.com Workflow and case process tracking. Monday.com
Aeon Timeline Complex timeline visualisation. Aeon Timeline
TimelineJS Visual public-style timelines. TimelineJS
Miro Case mapping and visual planning. Miro
Lucidchart Flowcharts, process maps and relationship diagrams. Lucidchart
Whimsical Flowcharts and simple visual mapping. Whimsical

9. Transcription, Audio and Meeting Tools

Transcription tools can help litigants in person convert voice notes, meetings, consultations and preparation sessions into written notes. However, recordings should only be made lawfully and appropriately. In court, recording is generally prohibited unless expressly permitted.

Tool Use Link
Otter.ai Meeting transcription and summaries. Otter.ai
Fireflies.ai Meeting recording, transcription and action points. Fireflies.ai
Fathom Meeting recording and AI summaries. Fathom
Zoom AI Companion Meeting summaries and transcript support. Zoom AI Companion
Microsoft Teams Meetings, transcription and collaboration. Microsoft Teams
Google Meet Video meetings and transcripts within Google Workspace. Google Meet
Descript Audio/video transcription and editing. Descript
Trint Professional transcription platform. Trint
Sonix Automated transcription. Sonix
Rev Human and automated transcription. Rev
Notta AI transcription and meeting notes. Notta
Read.ai Meeting summaries and analytics. Read.ai

10. Hearing Preparation and Advocacy Support Tools

Going to court as a litigant in person is not simply about having the right documents. It is about knowing what you are asking for, why you are asking for it, what evidence supports it, and how to explain that clearly under pressure.

Tool Use Link
ChatGPT Draft hearing scripts, questions, issue lists and oral submissions. ChatGPT
Claude Long-form document analysis and hearing preparation. Claude
Anki Flashcards for legal tests, facts and hearing preparation. Anki
Quizlet Flashcards and revision sets. Quizlet
Speechify Read documents aloud for review and preparation. Speechify
NaturalReader Text-to-speech for documents and statements. NaturalReader
Goodnotes Annotated hearing notes. Goodnotes
Notability Note-taking and document annotation. Notability
OneNote Case notebook and structured preparation. Microsoft OneNote
reMarkable Paper-style digital note-taking. reMarkable

11. Domestic Abuse, Safeguarding and Personal Safety Tools

Where domestic abuse, coercive control, stalking, harassment or safeguarding concerns arise, litigants in person should not rely on general productivity tools alone. Specialist support matters.

Tool / Resource Use Link
Bright Sky Domestic abuse support app and information. Bright Sky
Hollie Guard Personal safety app. Hollie Guard
Refuge National Domestic Abuse Helpline Domestic abuse support and helpline. National Domestic Abuse Helpline
Women’s Aid Survivor’s Handbook Information for survivors of domestic abuse. Women’s Aid Survivor’s Handbook
Clare’s Law / Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme Police disclosure route regarding risk from a partner or ex-partner. Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme
SafeLives DASH Resources Domestic abuse risk identification resources. SafeLives DASH resources
CourtNav FL401 non-molestation and occupation order applications. CourtNav injunction application

12. Finding Legal Help, Pro Bono Support and Unbundled Assistance

Many litigants in person do not need — or cannot afford — full representation. But they may still benefit from targeted advice, document review, hearing preparation, direct access counsel, a McKenzie Friend, pro bono assistance or legal clinic support.

Platform / Organisation Use Link
Law Society Find a Solicitor Find regulated solicitors in England and Wales. Find a Solicitor
Bar Council Direct Access Portal Find public access barristers. Direct Access Portal
Advocate Pro bono barrister assistance. Advocate
LawWorks Clinics Free legal advice clinics. Find a LawWorks clinic
ReviewSolicitors Solicitor reviews and firm search. ReviewSolicitors
Clerksroom Direct Direct access barrister services. Clerksroom Direct
Valla Employment tribunal support for claimants. Valla
Lawhive Legal services marketplace with AI-supported triage. Lawhive

13. File Storage, Sharing and Digital Organisation

Litigants in person need a clean digital filing system. A case can quickly become unmanageable if documents are scattered across WhatsApp, email, phone downloads, screenshots and paper piles.

Tool Use Link
Google Drive Cloud storage and document sharing. Google Drive
Microsoft OneDrive Cloud storage integrated with Microsoft 365. OneDrive
Dropbox Cloud storage and file sharing. Dropbox
Box Secure file storage and collaboration. Box
WeTransfer Large file transfer. WeTransfer
Proton Drive Privacy-focused cloud storage. Proton Drive

14. Communication, Signature and Admin Tools

Good communication records matter. Litigants in person should assume that emails, letters and messages may later need to be evidenced. Clear, calm, dated communication is often better than long emotional exchanges.

Tool Use Link
Gmail Email communication and searchable records. Gmail
Outlook Email and calendar management. Outlook
Proton Mail Privacy-focused email. Proton Mail
DocuSign Electronic signatures. DocuSign
Adobe Acrobat Sign Electronic signatures. Adobe Acrobat Sign
Dropbox Sign Electronic signatures. Dropbox Sign
Calendly Appointment booking. Calendly
TidyCal Low-cost appointment booking. TidyCal
Loom Screen recordings and video explanations. Loom
Snagit Screenshots and screen recording. Snagit
CleanShot X Mac screenshots and annotations. CleanShot X

15. Practical Productivity Tools for Litigants in Person

Court deadlines can be unforgiving. A missed filing date, a poorly named document or a forgotten direction can create avoidable problems. A simple task management system is often essential.

Tool Use Link
Todoist Task lists and deadlines. Todoist
TickTick Tasks, reminders and habit tracking. TickTick
Apple Reminders Simple deadline reminders. Apple Reminders
Google Calendar Directions, hearings, filing dates and reminders. Google Calendar
Evernote Notes, document clipping and case information. Evernote
Zapier Automation between apps. Zapier
Make Workflow automation. Make

16. Which Tools Should Litigants in Person Start With?

There is no point overwhelming a litigant in person with fifty tools on day one. Most people need a simple starting stack.

A basic LiP toolkit

  • GOV.UK forms for the correct application or response document;
  • Advicenow for plain-English guidance;
  • Support Through Court for practical and emotional court support;
  • Google Drive or OneDrive for organised storage;
  • Word or Google Docs for statements and position statements;
  • Excel or Google Sheets for chronologies;
  • Adobe Acrobat, Smallpdf or iLovePDF for bundle preparation;
  • ChatGPT or Claude for drafting support, with careful checking;
  • Google Calendar or Todoist for deadlines;
  • CourtNav where a non-molestation or occupation order application is needed.

A more advanced LiP toolkit

  • Airtable or Notion for evidence management;
  • iMazing or Decipher TextMessage for message exports;
  • Otter, Fireflies or Rev for transcription;
  • Bundledocs or Adobe Acrobat Pro for serious bundle work;
  • Find Case Law and BAILII for checking legal authorities;
  • Direct Access Portal or Advocate where legal advocacy or advice is needed.

17. The Real Gap in the Market

The current legal tech market is full of useful tools, but most were not designed specifically for traumatised, overwhelmed or procedurally inexperienced litigants in person.

That is the gap.

Litigants in person do not just need “information”. They need:

  • triage;
  • procedural clarity;
  • document structure;
  • evidence organisation;
  • deadline control;
  • bundle discipline;
  • plain-English explanations;
  • hearing preparation;
  • support that understands the emotional cost of litigation.

Legal tech can help. AI can help. But the strongest results come when technology is combined with human judgment, procedural experience and a clear understanding of what the court actually needs.

18. Final Thoughts

For litigants in person, technology should not be used to make a case louder. It should be used to make a case clearer.

The court does not need every screenshot, every message, every emotional detail and every grievance. It needs the relevant facts, the correct legal framework, the key evidence, the procedural history and a clear explanation of what order is being sought and why.

The right tools can help a litigant in person move from chaos to structure. But tools are only tools. Strategy still matters. Judgment still matters. Evidence still matters. Procedure still matters.

Used properly, legal tech can reduce overwhelm, improve preparation and help litigants in person present their cases more effectively. Used badly, it can create confusion, false confidence and avoidable risk.

The future of access to justice will not be solved by technology alone. But technology, properly used, is now part of the answer.

How JSH Law Can Help

JSH Law supports litigants in person with practical court preparation, case strategy, document drafting, chronology building, evidence organisation, bundle preparation and hearing support.

If you are representing yourself and feel overwhelmed by the process, you do not have to do everything alone.

Contact JSH Law to discuss practical support for your case.

Regulatory & Editorial Notice: JSH Law Ltd provides litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person. JSH Law Ltd is not a firm of solicitors and is not authorised or regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Information in this article is provided for general educational and public-interest purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts, documents, procedural history and evidence. Litigants remain responsible for the accuracy of documents they file and for decisions made in their own proceedings. Where legal advice is required, you should seek advice from a suitably qualified regulated legal professional.

JSH Law Resources and Guidance for Litigants in Person – practical family court information explained in plain English.© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.

Shocking, But Not Surprising: What the Latest Family Court Figures Reveal About Parents Going It Alone

/0 Comments/in , /by

The latest family court figures should stop us in our tracks. Cafcass recorded 42,172 new private law children’s cases involving 63,879 children between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, while the Law Society reports that in 47% of private family law cases in 2025, both parties appeared without lawyers. Behind those numbers are parents trying to restore contact, protect children, respond to allegations, prepare evidence, deal with Cafcass, and stand before a judge without a solicitor beside them. It is shocking — but for anyone working with litigants in person, it is not surprising.

Private Children Proceedings | Litigants in Person | Family Court Support

Shocking, But Not Surprising: The Reality for Families in Private Law Children Proceedings Is Now Impossible to Ignore

Cafcass recorded 42,172 new private law children’s cases involving 63,879 children between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026. The Law Society has also reported that, in 2025, both parties appeared without lawyers in 47% of private family law cases. For parents entering the family court without legal representation, these figures are not abstract statistics. They describe the reality they are already living.

The family court system is under pressure — and parents are carrying the weight

The latest Cafcass figures should make everyone involved in the family justice system stop and think. Between 1 April 2025 and 31 March 2026, Cafcass received 42,172 new private law children’s cases, involving 63,879 children. Private law children proceedings usually involve disputes between parents or family members about where a child should live, how much time they should spend with each parent, and how parental responsibility should be exercised.

These are not minor administrative disputes. These are cases about children’s homes, routines, safety, identity, schooling, relationships, emotional wellbeing and long-term stability. They are cases where a parent may be asking to restore contact after months of separation. They are cases where one parent may be raising safeguarding concerns. They are cases involving allegations of domestic abuse, coercive control, alienating behaviours, emotional harm, substance misuse, mental health difficulties, parental conflict and entrenched mistrust.

At the same time, the Law Society has reported that in 2025, in 47% of private family law cases, both parties appeared without lawyers. That means that in almost half of these cases, both parents were trying to navigate the family court process without formal legal representation.

That is shocking. But for anyone who works with litigants in person, it is not surprising.

Why so many parents are now representing themselves

Many parents do not become litigants in person because they want to. They become litigants in person because they have no realistic alternative.

Some cannot afford private solicitors. Some are outside the legal aid threshold but still nowhere near able to fund full representation. Some have had legal aid refused. Some have started with solicitors but run out of money before the case reaches a final hearing. Some feel they have been let down by previous representation. Others are capable, organised and determined, and want to run their own case while paying for targeted help at the points where it matters most.

The difficulty is that private children proceedings are procedurally demanding. A parent may have to understand the C100 application process, safeguarding checks, the role of Cafcass, the First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment, interim contact, directions, position statements, witness statements, Scott schedules, Section 7 reports, drug or alcohol testing, psychological evidence, bundle preparation, cross-allegations, enforcement applications and the welfare checklist under section 1 of the Children Act 1989.

Most parents are trying to learn all of this while under extreme emotional pressure. They are worried about their child. They are worried about what the other parent is saying. They are worried about being misunderstood by the court. They are worried about missing deadlines, saying the wrong thing, filing the wrong application or failing to put their evidence forward properly.

That is the gap JSH Law exists to help fill: practical, structured, non-solicitor support for litigants in person who need clarity, organisation and court-focused preparation.

Private children cases are not “simple” just because they are common

One of the most dangerous misunderstandings about child arrangements proceedings is the idea that they are straightforward because they are common. They are not.

A case may start with what appears to be a simple issue: one parent says contact has stopped. The other parent says there are safeguarding concerns. Very quickly, the case can become much more complex. The court may need to consider whether there has been domestic abuse. Cafcass may need to speak to the child. Allegations may need to be particularised. The parties may be directed to file statements. The court may have to decide whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary. There may be questions about indirect contact, supervised contact, handovers, school information, parental responsibility, prohibited steps, specific issues or enforcement.

For a represented party, a solicitor will usually help identify the legal issues, prepare the documents, manage the deadlines and frame the evidence. For a litigant in person, all of that responsibility often falls on the parent directly.

That is a heavy burden. It is also one of the reasons why preparation matters so much.

What litigants in person often need most urgently

When a parent is urgently searching for help before a children hearing, they are rarely looking for theory. They usually need practical answers to immediate problems.

They may need to know:

  • whether they need a C100, C2 or C79 application;
  • how to explain that contact has stopped without sounding hostile or emotional;
  • how to respond to allegations made by the other parent;
  • how to prepare a short but effective position statement;
  • how to create a chronology that actually assists the judge;
  • how to organise WhatsApp messages, emails, school records, police material or professional correspondence;
  • how to respond to a Cafcass safeguarding letter or Section 7 report;
  • what to ask the court for at the next hearing;
  • how to make their case child-focused rather than parent-focused;
  • what a McKenzie Friend can and cannot do in court.

Most litigants in person do not need someone to take over their entire case. Many need focused support at the right time: before issuing an application, before filing a statement, before a Cafcass call, before a directions hearing, before a final hearing, or when evidence has become messy and overwhelming.

The court needs evidence, not just distress

One of the hardest truths for parents in family court is this: being right is not enough. Being distressed is not enough. Feeling that the situation is unfair is not enough. The court has to make decisions based on evidence, welfare analysis and the law.

That does not mean the emotional reality is irrelevant. It means it has to be translated into a format the court can use.

For example, a parent may say:

“The other parent has completely cut me out and is turning the children against me.”

That may be the truth. But the court will need more than a conclusion. The court will need dates, examples, messages, missed calls, cancelled arrangements, changes in the child’s language or behaviour, school information, professional concerns, previous orders, and evidence of attempts to resolve matters.

Equally, a parent raising safeguarding concerns must be able to explain those concerns clearly and proportionately. If domestic abuse, coercive control or risk of harm is alleged, the court will need to understand what happened, when, what evidence exists, how the child is affected, and what protective arrangements are being sought.

The central question is always the child’s welfare. A strong case is not the loudest case. It is the clearest, best evidenced and most child-focused case.

Why chronology is one of the most powerful tools in a children case

A properly prepared chronology can change the way a case is understood.

Many parents arrive with hundreds of screenshots, years of messages and a strong feeling that there is a pattern of behaviour. But unless that material is organised, the pattern can be lost. Judges do not have unlimited time. Cafcass officers are dealing with heavy caseloads. A litigant in person who can present the key events clearly has a real advantage.

A good chronology should not be a dumping ground for every grievance. It should identify the events that matter. In a private children case, that may include:

  • when the parents separated;
  • what contact arrangements were in place;
  • when contact changed or stopped;
  • what efforts were made to resolve the issue;
  • what the child said or did, where relevant;
  • what professionals became involved;
  • what allegations were made and when;
  • what orders were made by the court;
  • what breaches or safeguarding incidents occurred;
  • what evidence supports each important event.

A chronology helps the court see sequence, context and pattern. In children proceedings, that can be vital.

Litigants in person need clarity about Cafcass

Cafcass plays a central role in many private children cases. For some parents, the first Cafcass safeguarding call feels like the most important conversation of the case. It can also feel intimidating, especially if the parent does not understand what Cafcass is looking for.

Cafcass is not there to represent either parent. Its role is to advise the court about the child’s welfare. That may involve safeguarding checks, speaking to the parties, identifying risk issues, making recommendations about interim arrangements, and, in some cases, preparing a more detailed Section 7 report.

Parents often make two mistakes with Cafcass. The first is saying too little because they are frightened of sounding difficult. The second is saying too much in an unstructured way because they are desperate to be heard.

The better approach is preparation. A parent should be able to explain the child’s current arrangements, what is working, what is not working, what the risks are, what evidence exists, what outcome they seek, and why that outcome is in the child’s welfare interests.

That requires calm, structure and focus.

What a McKenzie Friend can do for a litigant in person

A McKenzie Friend can provide practical support to a litigant in person. This may include helping a parent understand the court process, organise documents, prepare chronologies, draft position statements, prepare hearing notes, identify key issues, and feel less alone in a system that can otherwise feel overwhelming.

A McKenzie Friend is not the same as a solicitor. JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and does not conduct litigation. A litigant in person remains responsible for their own case, their own decisions, the accuracy of their documents and compliance with court directions. Rights of audience are not automatic and are always a matter for the court.

But for many parents, targeted non-solicitor support can make an enormous practical difference. It can help them move from panic to preparation. It can help turn scattered evidence into a coherent case. It can help them understand what the court needs to decide and how to present their position in a child-focused way.

The real issue: access to justice

The figures from Cafcass and the Law Society point to a wider access to justice problem. If private children applications are increasing, and almost half of private family law cases involve both parties appearing without lawyers, then the system has to confront the reality of who is actually standing before the court.

These are not trained advocates. They are parents, grandparents and family members trying to protect relationships with children, respond to allegations, raise safeguarding concerns and comply with court orders, often while under intense personal stress.

The family court cannot function properly if the people using it cannot understand the process, cannot present their evidence, and cannot identify what the court is being asked to decide.

Access to justice is not only about whether someone can technically issue an application. It is about whether they can participate meaningfully once they are in the process.

What parents should do before the next hearing

If you are representing yourself in private children proceedings, the most important step is to get organised early. Do not wait until the night before the hearing to gather your evidence. Do not assume the judge will understand the full background unless you explain it clearly. Do not file long, emotional documents that obscure the key issues.

Before the next hearing, ask yourself:

  • What is the court being asked to decide?
  • What order do I want the court to make?
  • Why is that order in my child’s welfare interests?
  • What evidence supports my position?
  • What are the strongest points against me?
  • How do I answer those points calmly and properly?
  • Have I complied with all directions?
  • Is my position statement clear, concise and useful?
  • Are my exhibits properly organised?
  • Can the judge understand the case quickly?

Family court preparation is not about making the other parent look bad. It is about helping the court make safe, fair and child-focused decisions.

How JSH Law can help

JSH Law provides practical support for litigants in person involved in private children proceedings. This can include help with:

  • C100, C2 and C79 application preparation;
  • case strategy and issue identification;
  • chronologies and evidence summaries;
  • position statements;
  • witness statement structure;
  • responding to Cafcass letters and Section 7 reports;
  • organising screenshots, WhatsApp messages and correspondence;
  • hearing preparation;
  • bundle planning and exhibit organisation;
  • practical McKenzie Friend support where appropriate.

The aim is not to overwhelm parents with legal jargon. The aim is to help litigants in person understand the process, prepare properly and present their case in a way the court can use.

If your child arrangements case has become urgent, confusing or emotionally overwhelming, it is better to get structured support early than to wait until the case has already drifted, deadlines have passed or evidence has become unmanageable.

Need help preparing for family court?

If you are representing yourself in child arrangements proceedings and need help preparing your application, statement, chronology, evidence, bundle or next hearing strategy, JSH Law provides practical non-solicitor support for litigants in person.

You remain in control of your case. JSH Law helps you get organised, focused and court-ready.

Book a 15-minute enquiry call or send your case papers for an initial review.

Sources

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is provided for general information and public legal education only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice from a qualified solicitor or barrister on the facts of your case.

JSH Law provides practical litigation support and McKenzie Friend services to litigants in person. JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and is not authorised or regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. JSH Law does not conduct litigation, does not go on the court record, and does not exercise reserved legal activities. Any documents prepared with support from JSH Law must be checked, approved and filed by the litigant in person, who remains responsible for the conduct of their own case.

References to third-party organisations, published statistics, public bodies, guidance or external resources are included for commentary and information purposes only. All external sources should be checked directly for the most up-to-date position.

Jessica Susan Hill, founder of JSH Law

About the author

Jessica Susan Hill

Jessica Susan Hill is the founder of JSH Law, providing practical litigation support and McKenzie Friend services for litigants in person involved in private children proceedings. Jessica is training to qualify as a family law solicitor and has extensive lived and practical experience of navigating the family court system, preparing court documents, organising evidence, and helping parents approach hearings with clarity and confidence.

JSH Law supports parents with child arrangements, Cafcass involvement, statements, chronologies, applications, hearing preparation and evidence organisation. The focus is practical, child-centred and court-ready support for people who are representing themselves.

JSH Law is not a firm of solicitors and is not SRA-regulated. Jessica does not conduct litigation or go on the court record. Clients remain responsible for their own case decisions, documents and court filings.

JSH Law Resources and Guidance for Litigants in Person – practical family court information explained in plain English.© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.

How to Stay Safe as a Litigant in Person After Mazur (Step-by-Step Guide) | JSH Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you are a litigant in person, the way your case is structured now matters more than ever. Following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, the court has made it clear that only authorised or exempt individuals can conduct litigation—and that line is being looked at more closely in practice. The result is that many people, often without realising it, may be exposing their case to unnecessary risk simply through how it is being handled. The good news is that this is entirely manageable. With the right structure in place, you can stay fully compliant, protect your position, and strengthen your case at the same time.

How to Stay Safe as a Litigant in Person After Mazur (Step-by-Step Guide) | JSH Law
Key Takeaways for Litigants in Person
  • You must remain in control of your case at all times.
  • Support is allowed — but it must not become “conduct of litigation”.
  • The court is increasingly alert to who is actually running the case.
  • Clear structure protects your credibility and your position.
  • Simple procedural discipline can eliminate most risks.

How to Stay Safe as a Litigant in Person After Mazur (Step-by-Step Guide)

If you are a litigant in person, you are already carrying a significant responsibility.

You are managing your own case, navigating court procedure, and making decisions that may have long-term consequences for you and your family.

Following the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), there is now an additional layer to that responsibility:

You must not only run your case — you must be seen to be running it.

This is where many people unintentionally expose themselves to risk.

This guide sets out, in practical terms, how to stay safe, compliant, and in control — while still getting the support you need.

—

Step 1: Understand the One Rule That Matters

Everything in this area comes back to a single principle:

You are the one conducting your case.

That means:

  • You make the decisions
  • You give the instructions
  • You take responsibility for what is filed and said

This is not about doing everything alone.

It is about ensuring that, at every stage, it is clear that the case is yours.

If that is maintained, you are on solid ground.

—

Step 2: Separate “Support” from “Control”

The most common mistake litigants make is confusing support with control.

Support is allowed — and often essential.

Control must remain with you.

To make this clear, apply this simple test:

“Am I the one making the decision and taking the step?”

If the answer is yes, you are within the correct structure.

If the answer is unclear, that is where risk begins.

For example:

  • If someone drafts a document for you → that is support
  • If someone decides what goes in that document → that may be control
  • If someone sends the document on your behalf → that may cross the line

The difference is subtle, but important.

—

Step 3: Take Ownership of Every Document

Every document in your case should be something you can stand behind.

That means:

  • You have read it
  • You understand it
  • You agree with it

In practical terms:

  • Do not submit anything you have not reviewed carefully
  • Do not rely on “it’s been handled”
  • Do not allow documents to be sent without your approval

Your name is on the case. The responsibility follows it.

—

Step 4: You Send the Emails

This is one of the simplest and most important safeguards.

All communications with:

  • The court
  • The other party
  • Solicitors

should be sent by you.

Support can help you draft those emails.

But you should be the one pressing send.

This ensures that:

  • Your role is clear
  • Your control is visible
  • Your position cannot be easily challenged

It also reinforces your credibility as a litigant in person.

—

Step 5: You Sign and File Everything

This is non-negotiable.

All documents:

  • Statements
  • Position statements
  • Applications

must be:

  • Signed by you
  • Filed by you

This is not just procedural.

It is a clear marker of who is conducting the case.

Where that marker is missing, questions can arise.

—

Step 6: Maintain a Clear Audit Trail

If your case were examined closely, you should be able to show:

  • That you made decisions
  • That you approved documents
  • That you gave instructions

This does not require complex systems.

It can be as simple as:

  • Email confirmations
  • Document versions showing your approval
  • Clear communication records

The aim is clarity.

If it is clear that you are in control, your position is protected.

—

Step 7: Be Careful Who You Rely On

Not all support is structured in the same way.

Some models are careful to remain within the boundaries of support.

Others may move closer to running the case, sometimes without clearly recognising the distinction.

This is not always obvious at the outset.

But you should be alert to signs such as:

  • Someone taking over communications
  • Decisions being made without your input
  • A sense that the case is being “handled” for you

These are indicators that the structure may need to be corrected.

—

Step 8: Understand How the Court Sees It

The court is not concerned with internal arrangements.

It looks at what is visible.

From the court’s perspective, the key question is simple:

Who appears to be running this case?

If the answer is clearly you, there is no issue.

If the answer is unclear, the court may take a closer look.

Clarity removes that risk entirely.

—

Step 9: Do Not Lose Your Voice in Your Own Case

One of the unintended consequences of over-reliance on support is that litigants can lose confidence in their own voice.

This can show in:

  • Hesitation in court
  • Uncertainty about their own position
  • Difficulty responding to questions

Staying in control of your case avoids this.

It ensures that:

  • You understand your arguments
  • You can explain your position
  • You remain engaged with the process

This is not just legally important.

It is strategically important.

—

Step 10: Use Support Properly — and Powerfully

The answer to all of this is not to avoid support.

It is to use it properly.

When structured correctly, support can:

  • Strengthen your case
  • Improve your preparation
  • Increase your confidence
  • Enhance how your case is presented

But it should always operate behind your role — not replace it.

You remain the decision-maker. Support strengthens you, not substitutes you.

—

Step 11: Recognise the Red Flags Early

One of the most effective ways to protect your case is to recognise when the structure is beginning to drift.

This rarely happens suddenly. It is usually gradual.

Support becomes more involved. Communication becomes more direct. Decisions start to feel less like yours and more like something being done “for you”.

That is the point at which you need to pause and reassess.

Common red flags include:

  • Emails being sent without your direct involvement
  • Documents being finalised without your review
  • Instructions being given on your behalf
  • A sense that you are being told what will happen, rather than deciding it

None of these, in isolation, automatically creates a problem.

But taken together, they can indicate that the structure of your case is no longer clear.

Clarity is what protects you. Loss of clarity is what creates risk.

—

Step 12: Real-World Scenario — Where Things Go Wrong

To understand how easily this can happen, consider a common scenario.

A litigant in person is overwhelmed. They engage someone to help. That person is experienced and confident. They begin by assisting with drafting. Then they begin to suggest wording. Then they begin to take a more active role in communication.

At first, this feels helpful.

Over time, however, the balance shifts.

The litigant becomes less involved in the detail. Documents are trusted without being fully reviewed. Emails are sent quickly to “keep things moving”.

From the outside, it may now appear that the case is being run by someone else.

This is not usually intentional.

But intention is not the test.

What matters is how the case is being conducted in practice.

—

Step 13: The “Safe Structure” Checklist

If you want to be confident that your case is properly structured, use this checklist.

You should be able to answer “yes” to all of the following:

  • I make the final decisions in my case
  • I review and approve every document before it is sent
  • I send all emails in my own name
  • I sign all statements and applications personally
  • I understand the key points being made in my case
  • I can explain my position to the court

If any of these answers are “no”, that is an opportunity to bring the structure back into line.

This is not about blame.

It is about clarity and control.

—

Step 14: Common Mistakes to Avoid

There are a number of recurring mistakes that litigants make, particularly when under pressure.

These include:

1. Delegating decisions
Allowing someone else to decide what should be said or done without your full involvement.

2. Not reviewing documents properly
Signing or sending documents without fully understanding their content.

3. Allowing others to communicate on your behalf
This is one of the clearest ways the line can be crossed.

4. Becoming disengaged from the case
Relying too heavily on support can reduce your own understanding and confidence.

Each of these is understandable.

But each can also weaken your position if not addressed.

—

Step 15: How This Strengthens Your Case — Not Just Protects It

It is important to recognise that these steps are not simply about avoiding problems.

They actively improve your case.

When you are clearly in control:

  • Your credibility with the court increases
  • Your submissions are more coherent
  • Your responses are more confident
  • Your case is more resilient to challenge

Judges are used to dealing with litigants in person.

What they look for is clarity, engagement, and understanding.

A well-structured case demonstrates all three.

—

Step 16: Confidence Comes From Control

Many litigants assume that confidence comes from having someone else take over.

In reality, the opposite is true.

Confidence comes from understanding your case and being able to explain it.

That only happens when you remain actively involved.

Support should increase your confidence, not replace your role.

—

Step 17: The Strategic Advantage Most People Miss

There is a misconception that staying within these boundaries limits what you can do.

In practice, it creates an advantage.

When your case is structured properly:

  • There is less room for procedural attack
  • Your position is clearer and more focused
  • The court can engage directly with you

At the same time, you still benefit from support behind the scenes.

This combination—control at the front, structure behind—can be extremely effective.

—

Step 18: A Final Word on Balance

This is not about drawing rigid lines that make your case harder to manage.

It is about balance.

You should not feel that you are facing proceedings alone.

But equally, you should not feel that your case is being taken out of your hands.

The correct position sits between those two points.

You are supported, but you remain in control.

—

Final Thoughts

The decision in Mazur has brought clarity to an area that many people did not fully consider.

For litigants in person, that clarity is an opportunity.

It allows you to structure your case in a way that is:

  • Compliant
  • Robust
  • Credible

Most importantly, it ensures that your case is judged on what matters:

The facts, the evidence, and the outcome you are seeking.

Get the structure right, and everything else becomes stronger.

—

Want to Make Sure Your Case Is Structured Properly?

If you are a litigant in person and want support that strengthens your case while keeping you fully compliant and in control, 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.

JSH Law Resources and Guidance for Litigants in Person – practical family court information explained in plain English.© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.

Advocacy Skills for Litigants in Person: How to Present Your Case Clearly and Effectively in Family Court

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Advocacy is not about being loud, emotional, or argumentative. It is about presenting your case clearly, calmly, and strategically so the judge can make a decision that serves your child’s welfare. In this guide for litigants in person, we break down the structure of effective advocacy in Family Court — from opening submissions and referencing evidence properly to cross-examination skills and closing arguments. If you are representing yourself, this is the framework you need.

Advocacy Skills for Litigants in Person: How to Present Your Case Clearly and Effectively in Family Court

Court Skills for Litigants in Person  |  England & Wales  |  Practical, strategic and structured

Key takeaways for litigants in person

  • Advocacy is clarity under pressure — not performance or volume.
  • The court wants structure: issue, law, evidence, proposed order.
  • Judges respond to proportionate, child-focused reasoning — not emotional narrative.
  • Preparation matters more than confidence.
  • Short, focused submissions are stronger than long, unfocused ones.
  • Credibility is built through restraint, accuracy and respect for the process.

Advocacy is not about being the loudest person in the room. It is not about delivering a speech. And it is not about “winning the argument”.

Advocacy in Family Court is the disciplined presentation of your case in a way that assists the judge.

If you are a litigant in person, you are doing two jobs at once:

  • You are a party to emotionally difficult proceedings.
  • You are your own advocate.

That is not easy. But it is manageable if you understand what good advocacy actually looks like.

1. What the Court Is Really Listening For

In private children proceedings, the court’s focus is governed by section 1 of the Children Act 1989 . The child’s welfare is paramount.

Judges are listening for:

  • What order are you asking for?
  • Why does that order promote welfare?
  • What evidence supports your position?
  • Is your proposal workable and proportionate?

If your submission does not answer those questions, it will feel unfocused — even if it is heartfelt.

2. The Core Structure of Effective Advocacy

Whether you are addressing the court at a First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA), a directions hearing, or a final hearing, use this structure:

  1. Identify the issue.
  2. State the legal framework.
  3. Refer to the key evidence.
  4. Propose a clear order.

Example (Child Arrangements Case)

Issue: The current informal arrangement is unstable and leading to conflict at handovers.

Law: The child’s welfare under s.1 Children Act 1989; harm suffered and risk of harm.

Evidence: Three missed handovers (bundle pages X–Y); school letter confirming child distress.

Proposed Order: Defined alternate weekend contact with school-based handovers.

That is advocacy. Short. Structured. Focused.

3. Tone and Demeanour: How You Present Matters

Judges expect:

  • Respectful language.
  • No interruptions.
  • No personal attacks.
  • Calm responses under challenge.

Losing composure undermines credibility. Even if the other party provokes you.

Advocacy is controlled discipline.

4. Dealing with Evidence in Oral Submissions

Refer to page numbers. Be precise.

Avoid phrases like: “It’s all in there somewhere.”

Instead: “Bundle page 142 shows the police reference number confirming the incident.”

Precision builds authority.

5. Cross-Examination Skills (If Applicable)

If you are permitted to question the other party (and subject to Domestic Abuse Act restrictions), questions must be:

  • Short.
  • Specific.
  • Non-argumentative.

Example:

  • “On 4 March, did you cancel contact at 7:45pm?”

Not: “You always manipulate contact to control me, don’t you?”

The first invites a factual answer. The second invites conflict.

6. Common Advocacy Mistakes

  • Reading a 20-page statement aloud.
  • Re-arguing past points repeatedly.
  • Interrupting the judge.
  • Speaking over the other party.
  • Failing to propose a clear outcome.

Judges are time-pressured. Clarity helps them help you.

7. Managing Nerves

  • Prepare bullet points.
  • Practice aloud.
  • Focus on structure, not performance.
  • Pause before answering.

Silence is not weakness. It is thinking time.

8. Advocacy in Safeguarding Cases

Where domestic abuse is raised, the court applies Practice Direction 12J .

Your advocacy must:

  • Identify risk.
  • Link it to welfare.
  • Propose proportionate safeguards.

Avoid framing safeguarding as punishment. Frame it as protection.

9. Closing Submissions at Final Hearing

Your closing should:

  1. Summarise findings you seek.
  2. Link them to welfare checklist factors.
  3. Propose final orders clearly.

Keep it focused. Judges appreciate brevity.

10. The Mindset Shift: From Emotion to Structure

Advocacy requires a shift:

  • From grievance to framework.
  • From reaction to strategy.
  • From narrative to evidence.

This is not about suppressing emotion. It is about presenting it lawfully.

Book a 15-minute consultation (phone)

If you want help preparing structured submissions or practising how to present your case calmly and clearly, you can book a consultation below.

6 Useful Links

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. JSH Law provides litigation support services to litigants in person and does not conduct reserved legal activities.

Freelance family court support offered remotely on an hourly basis for solicitors, barristers, law firms and litigants in person.

Freelance Family Court Support | Remote | Hourly

/0 Comments/in , /by

Over the past few months, a number of solicitors, barristers, and litigants in person have approached me informally for practical family court support — particularly where cases are complex, safeguarding-heavy, or procedurally messy.

I am now making this explicit.

I offer freelance, remote family-court support on an hourly basis, working in a McKenzie / paralegal / litigation-support capacity, including:

• Procedural guidance in private law children matters
• Case chronology building and issue-mapping
• Review and structuring of evidence and bundles
• Support around Cafcass, Section 7 reports, and safeguarding concerns
• Drafting assistance (statements, schedules, position notes, chronologies)
• Strategic preparation for hearings and appeals
• Support for litigants in person navigating court processes
• Overflow or ad-hoc support for solicitors and counsel

This is not advocacy and not legal advice where prohibited — it is experienced, hands-on court navigation and case support, delivered calmly, precisely, and with a strong procedural focus.

I work:
• Remotely
• Flexibly
• Confidentially
• On an hourly rate

I am currently building my website and publishing daily practical guidance and case-based commentary here:
👉 https://jshlaw.co.uk/

If you are:
• A solicitor or barrister needing reliable freelance support
• A law firm managing capacity pressure
• A litigant in person facing a complex family-court process

You are welcome to DM me directly for a brief, no-pressure conversation.

Clarity matters in family court. I help people get there.

Book a 15-Minute Consultation

If you are unsure whether your evidence supports your case effectively, book a short consultation to review your position.

Internal Links

Hoping these are useful for my reader:

  1. Family Court Procedure (Guidance Hub)
    https://jshlaw.co.uk/category/family-court-procedure-uk/
  2. Litigants in Person – Family Court Guidance
    https://jshlaw.co.uk/category/start-here/litigants-in-person-family-court-guidance/
  3. Cafcass & Reports (Section 7, safeguarding, analysis)
    https://jshlaw.co.uk/category/cafcass-reports-cluster/

External Links

These are also quite useful so i thought i’d post them here for you:

  1. Cafcass – understanding reports and safeguarding roles
    https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/
  2. Family Procedure Rules – procedural framework governing family proceedings
    https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family
  3. HM Courts & Tribunals Service – court processes and listings
    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

Regulatory & Editorial Notice

JSH Law provides procedural support, litigation support, and McKenzie Friend assistance.
Nothing on this website constitutes legal advice, legal representation, or advocacy where prohibited by law.

Content is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a substitute for independent legal advice from a qualified solicitor or barrister regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) or the Bar Standards Board (BSB).

Where references are made to third-party organisations, public bodies, legislation, guidance, or reported cases, these are included for context and public-interest commentary only. JSH Law is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or responsible for the content or actions of any external organisation.

Each case turns on its own facts. If you require legal advice, you should seek assistance from a suitably qualified legal professional.

Portfolio Items