Litigants in person are increasingly using AI tools, online templates and digital communities when preparing for family court proceedings. McKenzie friend Gergely Fried draws on his practical experience of supporting self-represented parents to explore how these developments are affecting family practice and what they mean for lawyers and the future of access to justice.
Family practitioners have become increasingly accustomed to working with litigants in person. Reductions in legal aid, rising legal costs and the emotional realities of relationship breakdown have all contributed to a steady increase in parties navigating proceedings without professional representation.
In practice, however, the difficulty faced by litigants in person is rarely limited to a lack of legal knowledge. Litigants often approach proceedings through personal narratives, perceived injustices and fragmented information, unaware of the courts’ requirement to apply statutory frameworks . The result is a persistent gap between the legal questions the court must determine and the issues litigants believe to be decisive.
Parallel system
This gap has generated a parallel ecosystem of support. Where solicitors and barristers once provided the primary interpretive framework through which parties understood their cases, McKenzie Friends have emerged to offer procedural guidance and practical support without formal legal authority.
More recently, digital tools have begun to occupy a similar space. Generative AI platforms are now used by litigants to draft witness statements, prepare correspondence and explore potential arguments. Online template libraries offer simplified versions of procedural documents, while digital communities provide peer-to-peer guidance grounded in personal experience rather than legal principle.
The result is a family justice system no longer shaped solely by solicitors, barristers and judges, but one increasingly influenced by algorithms, online communities and non-lawyer forms of support. AI may not replace lawyers, but it is already reshaping how litigants understand the law. The challenge for the profession is not simply to compete with digital tools, but to guide the environment in which legal understanding is now formed.
Words without meaning
As a McKenzie Friend working with litigants in person, I see the fundamental limitations of digital tools on a daily basis.
Litigants produce AI-generated documents with sophisticated legal language, but have little or no understanding of the welfare-based reasoning that underpins decisions under the Children Act 1989. Informal online advice frequently lacks reference to statutory frameworks, procedural rules or evidential thresholds.
In practice, this can produce submissions that are articulate but legally misaligned, with litigants prioritising arguments suggested by digital tools rather than addressing the issues the court is obliged to examine. This can create frustration and confusion for the litigant, and obscure, rather than clarify, the core issues in front of the court.
I also see a growing use of AI as a form of simulated legal environment. Some litigants rehearse arguments, anticipate judicial questions or attempt to predict outcomes using digital chat tools. While this may increase confidence, it risks fostering unrealistic expectations about judicial discretion, evidential assessment and the centrality of child welfare considerations.
For family lawyers, the rise of digitally mediated legal understanding presents both practical and conceptual challenges. The hearings I attend increasingly involve parties who arrive with extensive documentation compiled from disparate sources, combining legal terminology, personal narrative and algorithmic reasoning.
Impact on efficiency
This has implications for procedural efficiency and substantive fairness. I frequently see practitioners addressing arguments grounded in non-professional sources while managing expectations shaped by digital narratives rather than legal realities. Judges, meanwhile, must disentangle legally relevant material from content generated outside formal legal frameworks.
A recurring pattern is that litigants present lengthy statements structured around legal terminology and abstract principles, yet fail to address the specific welfare concerns identified by the court or Cafcass. Such material can give an impression of preparation while diverting attention from the evidential issues that ultimately determine outcomes.
From an access to justice perspective, the picture is complex. Digital tools may empower litigants by reducing barriers to information, yet they may also deepen misunderstanding of the legal process. Access to information does not necessarily equate to access to justice.
Reframing the response
These developments raise a fundamental question: how should the legal profession respond to the growing influence of digital tools and non-lawyer support?
In my experience of working with litigants in person, one benefit would be greater professional engagement with the ecosystem shaping litigants’ understanding of family law. Rather than viewing AI tools and non-lawyer support roles as competitors or threats, practitioners and regulators could play a more active role in identifying common misconceptions and promoting reliable sources of legal information.
There may also be scope for clearer boundaries and more structured interaction between professional legal services and non-lawyer support roles. McKenzie Friends often operate at the interface between legal process and emotional reality, providing forms of procedural guidance and reassurance that traditional legal services do not always prioritise. Recognising this dynamic need not undermine professional standards; it may instead help bridge the gap between legal reasoning and litigants’ lived experience.
In the writer’s view, the profession risks underestimating the influence of digital legal tools on litigant behaviour. If lawyers do not engage with this emerging ecosystem, it will continue to evolve without professional input, potentially widening the gap between legal reasoning and public understanding of family law.
About the author
Gergely Fried is a McKenzie friend and the founder of Everyman Justice, a support service for litigants in person navigating family court proceedings in England and Wales. With a background in education and business, he works closely with self-represented parents in child arrangements and related family law matters, offering insight into how digital tools and non-lawyer support are reshaping the family justice landscape.
