Scarcely a day goes by without a story demonstrating the growing reach of artificial intelligence (AI) across public and private life.

Whilst many businesses have adopted the technology as a way to improve efficiency and support innovation, individuals have capitalised on its ability to help them understand often complex concepts.

Increasingly, they include legal matters, including those relating to divorce, cohabitation and child arrangements.

Yet, as is often the case with new and evolving processes, mistakes can be made.

When it comes to family law, any errors can have significant, lasting consequences.

It is why I believe that although AI may have its merits, the direct human input of experienced family lawyers will always be essential.

I should explain, by way of background, that I and others appreciate why AI has become so popular in family law.

A variety of developments has led to a rise in people wanting to do things themselves rather than turn to time-served legal experts.

The opportunity to submit online applications for a number of issues including divorce has coincided with an increasing proportion of proceedings involving men and women choosing to represent themselves (referred to in legal parlance as Litigants in Person)

That has continued to tick upwards since the withdrawal of Legal Aid funding for many types of family law cases in April 2013.

The latest data from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), for instance, shows that both parties now have legal representation in only 13 per cent of private children proceedings (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2026/family-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2026).

Against that backdrop, it is perhaps easy to understand why Litigants in Person turn to what they believe is an easily accessible source of knowledge or help.

However, the lack of any legal training means that they might not recognise the pitfalls long identified by others, including members of the judiciary.

A year ago, a guidance note issued to judges pulled no punches, underlining how AI was anything but infallible (https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/artificial-intelligence-ai-judicial-guidance-october-2025/)

“The information provided may be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or biased. It must be borne in mind that ‘wrong’ answers are not infrequent”.

That advice was not open to a mother cleared of deliberately misleading the Court of Appeal in one family case in December (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/1570).

In the course of representing herself, she had submitted documents using case references drawn from AI which were found to be either irrelevant or “did not exist at all”.

Passing judgement, Lord Justice Baker said that “at worst, this may lead to the other parties and the court being misled. In any event, it means that extra time is taken and costs are incurred in cross-checking and correcting the errors”.

He added that “All parties – represented and unrepresented – owe a duty to the court to ensure that cases cited in legal argument are genuine and provide authority for the proposition advanced”.

Lawyers were further reminded of those obligations in August when the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA) issued a warning note about the need to apply rigour whenever using AI (https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/misuse-ai/).

More than having the technology throw up entirely fictitious case references, known as ‘hallucinations’, some models do not necessarily have sufficiently robust safeguards to protect confidential client information.

In addition, the potential for AI to offer fairly single, simple suggestions presents distinct limitations when it comes to family law.

As a Government consultation earlier this year on possible reforms to the laws governing financial remedy on divorce illustrated, “there is value in….retaining discretion, to reflect the wide variation in couples’ financial circumstances and to ensure the needs of the financially vulnerable can be met” (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-fairer-end-to-relationships/a-fairer-end-to-relationships-consultation-document).

The importance of flexibility in exploring a client’s circumstances to deliver the most suitable, strategic, tailored settlements across the entire range of family law matters is inherent in the work which Hall Brown Family Law undertakes.

It is arguably most apparent when it comes to our use of non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) methods, such as mediation, arbitration or collaborative law, which are now so favoured by judges, politicians and family lawyers alike in order to produce swifter, more personal and cost-effective outcomes, as well as relieving stress on busy family courts.

I would not want to be regarded as something of a legal Luddite because I am convinced that technology in its many forms has already had a considerable impact on the way that I and my colleagues do our jobs.

Even so, I think that when it comes to the family law, AI will never truly rival the human touch for ensuring that clients can deal with and move on from some of the most challenging episodes of their lives.