The Perils of Using AI Instead of a Professional Family Law Expert

Who hasn’t experimented with AI, turning favourite dog photos into cartoons or even transforming a beloved Labrador into its human equivalent? Entertaining, certainly… if slightly unnerving when your faithful pet suddenly resembles Chris Hemsworth.

But can you rely on AI to guide you safely through the family court process instead of using a lawyer or family law professional?

There is no doubt that AI can be useful for providing a general overview of court processes. My own simple search asking, “How do I start Children Act proceedings in the UK, how long will it take, and how much will it cost?”  produced a broadly accurate outline.

It told me that you need to attend mediation and obtain a MIAM (Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting) certificate, file a C100 application, and that Cafcass will carry out safeguarding checks before a First Hearing Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA).

All true, to an extent, if your case is straight forward.

It also told me that complex cases can take 9 - 18 months and cost upwards of £30,000.

And for some people, that is precisely why using AI is tempting. Legal advice costs money, whether you instruct a solicitor or a professional McKenzie Friend like myself.

However, the pitfalls become apparent very quickly when AI is used to complete application forms without a proper understanding of the legal process, or when statements are drafted without appreciating the strategic and legal implications of what is being written.

What AI won’t explain to you are the nuances, the strategy, the reasons why we write things in a certain way in applications, the key words to use when making an urgent application, how to talk to Cafcass, the personal peculiarities of a certain judge in the certain court, or the name of the usher who has been there 20 years and how you should always ask after her latest holiday when you see her if you want to get in ahead of everyone else with an urgent application. AI won’t understand the personal, complex or emotional needs of your particular family arrangement. AI generated statements can often sound unnatural and lack empathy.

More concerning is that AI does not always accurately interpret procedural rules or practice directions. In some cases, it has fabricated case law or cited legal authorities that simply do not exist. Judges have already issued warnings and, in some instances, imposed costs penalties where AI-generated documents containing false citations were submitted to the court.

That is not a risk any parent should be taking.

There is, of course, a positive side. AI can be helpful as an editing tool. It can refine language and remove unnecessary repetition. But even if a statement is 100% self/human generated, its legal content must be checked carefully by someone who understands the law, before it is filed with the court.

And while AI may suggest that your case will cost £30,000 or more, I can confidently say that I have never charged a client anything close to that, even in cases approaching 18 months in duration.

If you do start out using AI and you get into trouble and suddenly find you and AI are out of your depth, it’s probably going to cost you extra to get someone like me to try and dig you out of the hole you are in.

There is also the question of confidentiality. When you upload family court documents into an AI system, where does that information go? Who stores it? Can it be retrieved?

Family proceedings are confidential. Section 97 of the Children Act 1989 restricts the publication of information relating to children involved in proceedings. Sharing documents without proper consideration may place you at risk of breaching confidentiality obligations.

Finally, if cost is your primary concern, there are structured and manageable alternatives to traditional solicitor billing. I charge fixed fees on a hearing-by-hearing basis, breaking costs into manageable stages. Where hearings are several months apart, payments can be spread accordingly. This provides clarity and predictability without sacrificing professional guidance.

There is no substitute for experience. After 25 years working in family law, I have encountered, and responded to, virtually every scenario imaginable. I can draw upon my own archive of real cases, real statements, and real outcomes when advising clients, and I understand the subtleties that no algorithm can replicate.

AI can be a useful tool.

But when it comes to your children, your future, and the outcome of court proceedings, it should never replace informed, experienced, and accountable professional support.