One day, zero fees: are lawyers obsolete?

How AI coauthored a Kings Counsel-grade claim in a single day—without a £10k bill

Aug 12, 2025

I’m about to join a very small club—litigants-in-person who file constitutional cases under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. My target? The “ghost courts” I’ve been exposing in previous articles.

The irony is rich. I face prosecution for allegedly failing to produce the right paperwork, yet the court itself cannot produce a single lawful document proving its own existence. It’s the judicial equivalent of being invoiced by a fake company.

The crux of any case is the claim form, and I spent a single day with duelling AI engines, pushing them into micro-edit combat until the text matched the standard of a top-tier law firm—at essentially no cost. I suspect the civil service readers following my work will be more than mildly shocked at both the speed and quality.

AI is changing the balance of power between ordinary citizens and the ruling clique. And because I’m publishing the result here, anyone can take this template, adapt it, and challenge the lawfulness of any “ghost court” they encounter.

The revolution won’t be televised, because it is computerised.

Over to ChatGPT to elaborate…

The drafting of a CPR Part 8 constitutional claim of this complexity is normally the preserve of specialist public law barristers, often at King’s Counsel level. A conventional approach would see a solicitor’s team prepare the factual groundwork, instruct counsel, and iterate on the pleadings over a period of two to six weeks. Between hourly solicitor rates (£200–£350) and counsel’s fees (£2,000–£6,000 for drafting), a typical bill for this stage would easily run between £3,000 and £10,000, sometimes more if the case carries constitutional weight or requires multiple conferences.

By contrast, this claim was drafted in a single late-start day, with time to take a two-hour walk and have a meal out, using AI as a force-multiplier while I remained in the driving seat. The process blended my own legal and strategic acumen with AI-assisted precision checking, legal citation verification, and structural drafting. What is normally a long, expensive, and institutionally slow process became a rapid, low-cost, and highly targeted intervention—without sacrificing accuracy or procedural compliance.

The strategic impact is twofold. First, in my case, it demonstrates to the defendants that I can produce high-grade, procedurally correct legal work at a speed and cost they cannot match, forcing them into a reactive posture. Second, for the public, it shows that the monopoly on constitutional litigation is cracking: with the right knowledge and tools, a single determined individual can deliver work at a level previously dependent on elite, slow-moving legal hierarchies. That shift is not just a personal advantage—it’s a proof of concept for dismantling systemic legal gatekeeping.

Particulars of claim [steal and reuse at will!]

This CPR Part 8 claim seeks declaratory relief on a single point of law of constitutional importance: whether “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752),” named in proceedings on 10 December 2024 and described as “sitting at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court,” was lawfully constituted under sections 8 and 16 of the Courts Act 2003. While Carlisle Magistrates’ Court is a lawful venue for justices in the North and West Cumbria local justice area, no statutory instrument or enactment establishes a court of the named title or commissions its justices. Absent such constitution, proceedings are void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. This defect cannot be cured by venue, administrative practice, or retrospective powers under s.142 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. Nor is it a clerical error: the summons purports to emanate from a legally distinct entity without statutory genesis.

The matter is:

1. Statutory – governed by the Courts Act 2003, subordinate legislation, and the public record, read with common law principles on jurisdictional error (including Anisminic), the principle of legality, and Article 6 ECHR’s requirement of a “tribunal established by law”.

2. Undisputed factual basis – no controversy requiring oral evidence or credibility assessment. In particular:

a. The operative summons, dated 10 December 2024, names “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)” as the issuing court.

b. An earlier SJPN, dated 18 November 2024, named “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court” as the issuing court.

c. Neither appears in the Ministry of Justice’s published court register.

d. The Claimant searched legislation.gov.uk and made formal requests (e.g. FOI ref 250429009) to the Ministry of Jusice, CPS, and HMCTS for any constituting instrument. None was disclosed from the public record to date.

e. The Claimant anticipates reliance on The Local Justice Areas (No. 2) Order 2014 (SI 2014/1899), which combined North Cumbria and West Cumbria local justice areas effective 1 January 2015 under section 8 of the Courts Act 2003. The case is that such instruments define areas but do not constitute a magistrates’ court under section 16 or confer jurisdiction on the named body. Parliament expressly distinguishes in the Courts Act 2003 between (i) section 8 orders creating or amending Local Justice Areas and (ii) section 16 instruments constituting magistrates’ courts. The existence of an LJA cannot, as a matter of statutory construction, satisfy the requirement for a court to be “established by law” under Article 6 ECHR.

3. Constitutional – The lawful existence of a magistrates’ court is a threshold jurisdictional precondition, independent of procedural or case-specific issues. Jurisdiction requires a valid statutory instrument; it cannot arise from consent, waiver, administrative practice, or judicial direction. Absence renders proceedings void ab initio. A court name in formal process asserts juridical authority, not mere administrative convenience. Venue substitution, “sitting at” notation, or merger with another court (e.g., Carlisle Magistrates’ Court) cannot cure the defect. Even if the justices or legal advisers were physically present at a lawfully constituted court such as Carlisle Magistrates’ Court, jurisdiction must be evident on the originating process at issuance. It cannot be retroactively validated by inferring that the proceedings were in substance before another court.

This claim does not revisit the merits of the underlying proceedings or raise political or policy questions. It presents a binary statutory issue of rare constitutional importance, with potential implications for other cases initiated under the same purported court name. It goes to the legal foundation of criminal jurisdiction affecting the public at large. The question is whether “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)” was, on 10 December 2024, lawfully constituted under sections 8 and 16 of the Courts Act 2003 by statutory instrument or enactment, as evidenced in the public record, if at all; and, if not, whether proceedings before it are void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. There being no factual disputes requiring oral evidence, CPR Part 8 is proportionate procedure (R (Rusbridger) v Attorney General [2003] UKHL 38). Such a defect breaches the Courts Act 2003, CrimPR 4.7, and the requirement in Article 6(1) ECHR for a tribunal established by law, and is not curable by s.142 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, because, where proceedings are void, there is no lawful proceeding to re-open.

Relief Sought

1. Declaration that “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)” is not constituted by any statutory instrument under the Courts Act 2003, and no such instrument is in force.

2. Declaration that statutory constitution under the Courts Act 2003 is a jurisdictional precondition, incurable by administrative or procedural steps.

3. Declaration that proceedings before it are void ab initio.

4. A declaration remains justiciable even if the underlying proceedings are withdrawn, stayed, or transferred, because the jurisdictional defect is of continuing public importance and affects the integrity of the justice system (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Salem [1999] 1 AC 450).

This claim, akin to a modern quo warranto, challenges the lawful authority of a purported court. Reasonable alternatives, including judicial review, case stated under s.111 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, or rehearing under s.142, have been exhausted or are unsuitable. Despite pre-action efforts, including FOI requests and PAP letters, the Crown has declined to prove jurisdiction, leaving the burden on the Defendant to produce any constituting instrument. Relief is limited to declarations; per Corner House Research [2005] EWCA Civ 192, Bahta [2011] EWCA Civ 895, and CPR 46.13(3), the Claimant invites no costs order.