Incoming Master of the Rolls Proposes Page Limits for AI-Assisted Litigants in Person as Legal Ombudsman Finds AI Deflects Complaints
Lord Justice Birss, the incoming Master of the Rolls, has suggested imposing a strict page limit on case outlines submitted by litigants in person, responding to judges' difficulties in handling AI-drafted claims. Separately, the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has published research finding that unhappy clients are increasingly turning to AI tools, but that AI is functioning as an informal pre-complaint triage mechanism more likely to dissuade consumers from complaining than to encourage complaints.
Why this matters
Two simultaneous signals point to AI reshaping access to justice from opposite ends. Courts are struggling to manage a surge in AI-assisted litigants in person producing voluminous or poorly structured pleadings, prompting senior judiciary to consider procedural constraints. At the same time, the Legal Ombudsman's data suggests AI is quietly filtering out potential complaints before they reach formal channels, with ambiguous implications for consumer protection and law firm accountability.
On the Ground
Civil litigation and court reform practices will need to monitor any rule changes to CPR or practice directions flowing from Birss's proposal. Firms advising on legal services regulation should brief compliance teams on the LeO's triage finding, which may affect how complaint data is interpreted. A trainee would be tasked with tracking the Civil Procedure Rule Committee's consultation pipeline and summarising the LeO research note for a partner update.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“How should courts and regulators respond to AI-drafted submissions from litigants in person?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved