AI and the future of family law

I hope this article finds you well!

That opening, of course, was not written by me. It was the suggestion of an AI assistant when I asked how it might begin this piece. It is a perfect illustration of both the promise and the limitations of artificial intelligence in legal practice - helpful, certainly, but lacking the nuance and contextual awareness that we, as solicitors, bring to our work every day.

Artificial intelligence is reshaping family law practice in ways that would have seemed improbable just a few years ago. For those of us working in divorce proceedings, particularly financial remedy cases and children matters, the technology presents opportunities and changes that need serious consideration.

Efficiency and access to justice

AI can summarise voluminous disclosure, organise complex financial information, and streamline the drafting of routine documents. These efficiencies have genuine potential to reduce costs for clients and allow more people to access legal advice.  The technology also offers the prospect of accelerating proceedings. In a system where delays have become endemic, any tool that can expedite preparation and reduce administrative burden merits attention. Clients waiting anxiously for resolution of their financial affairs or arrangements for their children would surely welcome such improvements.

The changing client dynamic

Perhaps more intriguing is how AI is altering the relationship between solicitors and their clients. Increasingly, clients arrive at our offices having already used AI tools to draft statements, compose correspondence, or research their legal position. Litigants in person are become more sophisticated with their drafting, requiring solicitors to adjust their strategy accordingly.  This presents both challenges and opportunities.

On one hand, clients who have engaged thoughtfully with their case materials may be better prepared for meaningful discussions about strategy. On the other, AI-generated content frequently contains inaccuracies, misapplied legal principles, or fabricated case references. Managing expectations shaped by confident but flawed AI responses has become an additional task for practitioners particularly when clients believe they have received authoritative guidance.

A word of caution

We must not allow enthusiasm to eclipse prudence. AI tools hallucinate. They present fabricated citations with complete confidence. They misunderstand nuance in discretionary areas of law where context is everything. Like any assistant, they get things wrong, sometimes dramatically so.  Responsible use requires robust verification of any AI-generated output. Professional standards demand no less. The technology should augment our expertise, not replace our judgment.

Towards greater consistency

The current reality of family law practice includes significant variability depending on which judge is allocated to a case. Judicial indications at first appointments can differ markedly based on individual approaches to case management and the exercise of discretion. For clients, this lottery element feels arbitrary and unjust.

AI's capacity to analyse patterns across thousands of decisions offers a potential counterweight to this inconsistency. By identifying how factors have been weighted in comparable cases, the technology could contribute to a more predictable and equitable system - one where outcomes depend less on which courtroom door you walk through.

The traditional approach to advising clients on likely outcomes in ancillary relief cases has always involved a degree of educated estimation. We draw upon our experience, our knowledge of comparable cases, and our understanding of how particular judges approach the exercise of their discretion. AI, however, can process and analyse thousands of reported decisions in moments, identifying patterns in judicial reasoning that might take a human practitioner years to recognise.

Consider the potential implications for financial settlements. Rather than relying solely on our instinct that a particular judge tends toward a certain approach, AI tools can synthesize data from countless decisions to provide more evidence-based predictions. This analytical capability could lead to greater consistency in outcomes and, ultimately, fairer results for separating couples.  I have already had a case where a Judge has freely admitted to using AI to help research a particular legal point that was the matter of friendly debate in a hearing. This outcome my seem fanciful at first, but it may be closer than anyone thinks.

The transformation is already underway. AI will not replace family lawyers, but it will change fundamentally how we work. Those who dismiss it as a passing novelty risk being left behind; those who embrace it uncritically risk professional embarrassment-or worse.

The sensible path lies in thoughtful engagement: understanding what AI can and cannot do, developing clear protocols for its responsible use, and recognising that our role as trusted advisers becomes more valuable, not less, as clients navigate an increasingly automated landscape.

Artificial intelligence in family law is not a question of friend or foe. It is simply a reality we must take seriously.