Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is becoming more prevalent within everyday life and its function is being applied to a variety of circumstances including those of a legal nature such as divorces and Financial Remedy Proceedings.
Going through a divorce will undoubtedly be one of the most stressful times in a person’s life, typically with a large amount of legal work associated with it. The idea of passing the burden of this work to someone that is in your corner and representing your best interests can be a comforting one. That “someone” has historically been in the form of a solicitor and/or barrister, but has more recently come to include AI. The utility of AI tools like ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot can often depend on how one uses it.
Whilst AI may be able to explain basic concepts and terminologies, it cannot be relied upon to provide bespoke legal advice to an individual’s own circumstances or to act in their best interests. One reason for this is the risk of the AI tool providing inaccurate information that may be outdated or, in some cases, complete fiction. This is a particular issue when parties are using AI to generate entire documents to be used at court hearings like their own witness statements or position statements/skeleton arguments. This can be seen from the case of D (a child) (recusal) 2025, where a skeleton argument was prepared with the assistance of AI that included an abundance of legal inaccuracies and case law that did not exist. Lord Justice Baker, in his judgment, held that all parties “owe a duty to the court to ensure that cases cited in legal argument are genuine and provide authority for the proposition advanced.”.
Guidance was published in October 2025 to assist Judicial Office Holders on dealing with AI in Courts and Tribunals. It is advised in the guidance that AI does not have the requisite capability to critically analyse or reason convincingly. Within the context of Financial Remedy Proceedings, critical thinking must be applied to every stage of the process including when a court application has become necessary, making an offer in settlement to reach a deal and whether or not it is proportionate to refuse an offer in mind of the costs to keep going. Throughout these proceedings, there will need to be a degree of pragmatism and rational thought applied to the case. This requirement to analyse documents and apply a pragmatic view is simply something an AI tool cannot do as effectively as a human lawyer.
A lawyer will be able to advise the client on the strengths and weaknesses of their own case and that of the other side, discuss with the client the proportionality of their options including whether court proceedings are necessary and crucially apply a realistic view of a settlement that a court may order. That final point is a crucial one as Family Law is antithetical to AI in that the proceedings are not written in stone (or in this case, written in code!) and is non-binary in nature. The key takeaway is that outside of court, there are not set parameters for how to reach a deal/settlement or what the contents of the deal are (other than it needing to be somewhere in the realm of fairness). Inside the court, Judges are given wide discretion as to how they reach their judgment and there is not one right answer but different variations of what should be ordered. AI does not have capability to be pragmatic, proportional or appreciate the wide discretion both the parties and judges have in reaching a final settlement, therefore, there is a real risk that the AI user may harm their own case.
Another risk of using AI is confidentiality, as family court proceedings are confidential. Therefore, by uploading court documents onto an AI tool, this may be in breach of law governed by the court’s rules on confidentiality and other data protection regulations such as GDPR. AI learns from the data that is input into it which is often stored, therefore, sharing personal information with AI tools should always be avoided.
In January 2025, the Civil Justice Council agreed to set up a working group (“the Group”) to examine the use of AI by legal representatives for preparing court documents. An update on the Group’s findings was given in June 2026. The Group discussed the possibility of when AI is used in preparing key court documents including witness statements that the use of AI is disclosed within the document. Using AI in such key documents may risk significant issues as, apart from the possibility of legal inaccuracies, the statement should be in the witnesses’ own words. A final report from the Group is anticipated to be published later this year with the agreed recommendations to be made.
Whilst AI can be used, a disciplined and cautious approach is advised. AI tools are not a replacement for suitable legal representation with advice tailored to your circumstances.
At Warners Solicitors, our Family Team strives to help guide and support those going through this stressful time without running the risks of generating your legal documents through AI.
If you are going through a divorce and need support, we would be happy to discuss your options and ensure you are protected. For more information, please contact our Family Law team on 01732 747900 or enquiries@warners.law.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published. We do not accept responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the information in this article.
