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