The legal landscape is shifting in two powerful directions at once. On one hand, the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has reinforced the boundaries around who can legally conduct litigation. On the other, artificial intelligence is rapidly expanding what litigants in person are capable of achieving without formal representation. These developments are not in conflict—they are converging. Together, they are reshaping the future of legal support into something more structured, more transparent, and ultimately more empowering for those navigating the system themselves.

---

Mazur, AI, and the Future of Legal Support

The legal system is entering a period of change that is both structural and technological.

On one side, the High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has reinforced the boundaries of who can legally conduct litigation. On the other, the rapid development of artificial intelligence is transforming how legal work is prepared, structured, and delivered.

At first glance, these developments may appear to be in tension.

One restricts who can carry out certain legal functions. The other expands who can access tools that were once limited to professionals.

In reality, they are moving in the same direction.

Towards a legal system where structure, transparency, and capability matter more than ever.

—

The Reinforcement of Legal Boundaries

The significance of Mazur lies not in creating new law, but in clarifying how existing law is to be applied.

The decision reinforces a simple but important principle:

The conduct of litigation is a reserved activity. It cannot be delegated simply through supervision or informal arrangements.

This draws a clear boundary around who can formally run a case.

For litigants in person, that boundary is not a barrier—it is a framework.

It confirms that the case is, and remains, theirs.

—

The Rise of AI in Legal Support

At the same time, artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how legal work is done.

Tasks that once required significant time and expertise can now be supported by systems that:

• Analyse large volumes of documents
• Structure arguments and chronologies
• Assist with drafting and refinement
• Identify gaps and inconsistencies

These tools are not theoretical.

They are already being used across the legal sector, from large firms to individual practitioners.

The question is not whether AI will play a role in legal support.

It is how that role is defined.

—

AI Does Not Conduct Litigation

This is where the alignment between Mazur and AI becomes clear.

AI does not “conduct litigation”.

It does not make decisions, take responsibility, or act on behalf of a party in a legal sense.

What it does is enhance capability.

It enables:

• Better preparation
• Clearer structure
• More efficient organisation

Used properly, AI sits firmly within the category of support.

It strengthens the litigant’s ability to run their own case, rather than replacing them.

—

A Shift From Representation to Enablement

Traditionally, legal services have been built around representation.

A solicitor or barrister takes conduct of the case and acts on behalf of the client.

For many litigants in person, that model is not accessible.

What is emerging instead is a different model.

One based on enablement.

In this model:

• The litigant remains in control
• Support is provided to enhance capability
• Technology is used to improve structure and clarity

This is not a second-tier alternative.

It is a distinct and increasingly important part of the legal ecosystem.

—

The Risk of Getting It Wrong

As with any shift, there are risks.

AI, if misunderstood, can create the same problems as poorly structured human support.

If it is used in a way that removes the litigant from decision-making, or creates a sense that the case is being “run externally”, then the underlying issue remains.

The tool itself is not the risk.

How it is used is what matters.

—

The Opportunity for Litigants in Person

For litigants in person, this moment presents a significant opportunity.

With the right approach, it is now possible to:

• Prepare cases to a higher standard
• Organise evidence more effectively
• Present arguments with greater clarity

Without stepping outside the boundaries of the law.

This is not about replacing legal professionals.

It is about increasing the capability of those who are navigating the system themselves.

—

A More Structured Future

The combined effect of Mazur and AI is likely to lead to a more structured approach to legal support.

We can expect to see:

• Clearer definitions of roles
• More transparent support models
• Greater emphasis on litigant control

At the same time, the tools available to litigants will continue to improve.

This creates a system that is both more disciplined and more accessible.

—

Where This Leaves Legal Professionals

For legal professionals, this shift is not a threat—it is a redefinition.

There will always be a need for authorised representation.

But alongside that, there is a growing space for:

• Strategic support
• Case structuring
• Technology-enabled assistance

Those who understand this shift are likely to play a key role in shaping the future of legal services.

—

Final Thoughts

The legal system is not standing still.

Mazur reinforces the boundaries of who can formally conduct litigation.

AI expands the tools available to those who cannot access traditional representation.

Together, they point towards a future where:

Litigants in person are not left behind — but are better equipped, better supported, and more capable than ever before.

The key is structure.

Get that right, and both law and technology work in your favour.

—

Want to Use AI and Legal Strategy Properly in Your Case?

If you are a litigant in person and want structured, forward-thinking support that combines legal strategy with modern tools, 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.