Who Checks the AI in Your Family Court Case? Seven Questions to Ask

JSH LAW · EVIDENCE, SAFEGUARDING & PRACTICAL SUPPORT
By Jessica Susan Hill · Reviewed 26 October 2026 · England and Wales unless stated otherwise

AI can help you prepare a family court case, but someone still has to check the facts, the law and the finished document. If you are using AI yourself, or paying someone who uses it to help you, you need to know how those checks will happen.

The Law Society’s guidance on using artificial intelligence in legal practice addresses how existing professional duties and regulatory obligations apply when AI is used. For people navigating family court, that raises a practical question: who takes responsibility for the work that reaches your case?

When you are exhausted, facing a deadline and trying to make sense of hundreds of documents, a clear AI-generated answer can feel like a breakthrough. It may be useful. Before relying on it, you need a way to establish what it has got right, what it has missed and what it has invented.

This article sets out seven questions to ask a person helping with your case, or to apply to your own AI use. They are JSH Law’s practical framework, rather than a checklist issued by the Law Society.

What does professional AI guidance mean for family court users?

The Law Society practice note is written for solicitors and the teams they work with. It does not make every litigant in person, McKenzie Friend or practical support provider subject to solicitors’ regulatory rules. Its themes can nevertheless help court users ask informed questions about how AI-assisted work is carried out.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s warning notice on misuse of AI, published on 17 August 2026, makes the accountability point explicit: solicitors and regulated individuals remain responsible for their work when AI is involved. Its concerns include inaccurate court documents and risks to client confidentiality.

That warning applies within the SRA’s regulatory remit. A solicitor, a barrister, a McKenzie Friend and a technology company should not be assumed to have identical roles, regulatory arrangements or complaints routes. Ask who you are instructing, what they have agreed to do and what protections apply.

Our practical recommendation is to expect an identifiable person, an agreed task and an understandable checking process whenever someone uses AI to help prepare your case.

Seven questions to ask before relying on AI-assisted work

1. Who will check the work, and what does their review cover?

“A human checks it” is a starting point. Ask what that person actually checks:

• the accuracy of facts and dates;
• the original documents supporting important assertions;
• the legal sources and the propositions attributed to them;
• compliance with the task and the court’s directions; and
• the final version you will receive.

A review of spelling and layout does not establish that the legal analysis is sound. The SRA Code of Conduct requires competent service and effective supervision where solicitors supervise others. If someone is providing a narrower practical support service, establish its limits in writing and identify where regulated legal advice is needed.

2. What exact job is the AI being asked to do?

Define a manageable task before using a tool. “Create a blank chronology template” needs a different review from “analyse this safeguarding report” or “tell me which application to make”.

Agree the output, the review and who makes any decision that follows. A neatly organised document can still rest on a mistaken assumption.

3. What information will leave my control?

Ask before uploading documents or authorising someone else to upload them. Establish which tool will receive the information, who can access it, whether it is retained, whether it may be used for training and what deletion arrangements exist.

The SRA’s warning explains that both paid and free AI services may lack the safeguards required for confidential client information. A subscription alone does not establish that a service is suitable for sensitive legal material.

Removing names also needs care. The Information Commissioner’s Office explains the distinction between anonymisation and pseudonymisation: replacing direct identifiers may leave people identifiable through other information. In a family case, a school, unusual event or combination of dates may still identify someone.

For information relating to certain private children proceedings, communication is governed by provisions including Family Procedure Rule 12.73 and Practice Direction 12G. They provide for specified communications and permissions, but should not be read as blanket permission to upload documents to an AI provider. Check the type of proceedings, who would receive the information, the purpose of the proposed disclosure and any court directions. A privacy setting or your own consent does not resolve every issue concerning court information or other people’s data.

If you only need a generic template or explanation, consider whether the task can be completed without supplying any real case information.

4. Can every important assertion be traced to its source?

Ask for source references in a working chronology or evidence summary. These should let a reader find the relevant document and passage without guessing.

Check whether the draft distinguishes:

• what someone alleges;
• what a document records;
• what another person admits;
• what the court has found; and
• what remains an inference or unresolved question.

For example, a school record saying that a parent reported a threat records a report. It does not, by itself, establish that the threat occurred. An AI summary can lose that distinction when compressing several pages into a sentence.

Source references make checking possible; they are not proof that checking has happened. Open the cited page and read enough surrounding material to test the summary. Preserve the original document separately from the AI-assisted working version.

5. Has anyone opened and read the legal authorities?

A case name, neutral citation and paragraph number can look convincing while being wrong. Even a genuine judgment may not support the argument being made.

For each authority you intend to rely on, check that the judgment exists, the cited passage says what the draft claims, and the principle is relevant to your proceedings. Check jurisdiction and whether later developments affect the point.

The judiciary’s October 2025 AI guidance warns about using AI to find legal information that cannot be independently verified. That document is addressed to judicial office holders and their support staff. Its warning offers a useful lesson for anyone preparing a case: asking the same chatbot to confirm its answer is not independent verification.

If you cannot establish what an authority says or why it matters, obtain appropriate advice before relying on it. An unresolved reference should remain flagged in working notes rather than acquire authority through repeated copying.

6. Has the drafting changed my evidence?

Read especially carefully where AI has helped with a witness statement. Check for changes to certainty, frequency, intention and the source of your knowledge.

“I cannot remember the exact date” must not become an exact date chosen by software. “I felt frightened” must not become an assertion about another person’s intention. A disputed event must not become an established pattern simply because stronger wording sounds persuasive.

The President of the Family Division’s memorandum on witness statements emphasises the witness’s own words, the distinction between personal knowledge and information or belief, and the importance of protecting recollection from influence.

Our practical recommendation is to compare the draft with your original account before signing. Query every addition, explain the basis of relevant beliefs and retain genuine uncertainty. Clearer expression should preserve what you can honestly say.

7. What happens if an error is discovered?

Agree a correction process before a deadline makes everything urgent. Ask who will respond, how changes will be checked and how you will know which version is current.

For your working records, keep the original source, the reviewed draft and a short note of material corrections. Store these securely and avoid creating unnecessary extra copies of sensitive information.

If inaccurate material has already been sent or filed, identify precisely what is wrong and obtain prompt advice about the appropriate correction. Do not assume that silently replacing your own copy corrects what other people have received. Follow the applicable procedure and any court directions.

A worked example: when a summary becomes an allegation

Hypothetical example: a parent asks AI to summarise messages about three proposed handovers. One message cancels an arrangement, one proposes another time and one receives no reply.

The draft summary says: “The other parent repeatedly breached the order and deliberately obstructed contact.”

That sentence has added conclusions. Before using it, a reviewer would need to examine the order, the full exchanges, what actually happened and any explanation. The messages may be relevant to an alleged breach, but the summary alone cannot establish the legal conclusion or the person’s intention.

A more useful working record would separate the proposed dates, relevant wording of the order, messages, actual outcome and unresolved questions. It would identify the sources and leave disputed conclusions clearly marked.

This is why checking a document involves more than making it sound professional. The reviewer must examine what the words claim.

A short checklist before relying on the result

• I know the task the AI performed and the limits of the review.
• I have addressed permission, confidentiality and data handling before sharing material.
• I can locate the sources for important factual assertions.
• Allegations, admissions, findings and uncertainty remain distinguishable.
• Legal references have been checked against authoritative sources.
• My evidence still reflects what I know, remember and can honestly explain.
• I know which version is current and how to address an error.

This is a preparation checklist, not a substitute for the rules, the latest order or advice on your individual case.

Practical help with evidence and preparation

If you are struggling to turn documents into a usable chronology or organise material for a hearing, JSH Law provides practical family court evidence and chronology support. You can book a consultation to discuss the practical support you need.

For the wider benefits and limitations of these tools, read our guide to using ChatGPT for family court as a litigant in person.

Sources and further reading

• Law Society: Using artificial intelligence in legal practice.
• SRA: Misuse of AI — warning notice, 17 August 2026.
• SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs.
• Judiciary: Artificial Intelligence Guidance for Judicial Office Holders, October 2025.
• President of the Family Division: Memorandum on Witness Statements, November 2021.
• Family Procedure Rules 2010: Rule 12.73 — communication of information; Practice Direction 12G (communication of information).
• ICO: Introduction to anonymisation. The ICO marks this guidance as under review following the Data (Use and Access) Act.

General information and commentary, not advice on an individual case. JSH Law provides non-reserved litigation support, document-preparation assistance and McKenzie Friend support, subject to the court’s permission where required. It is not an SRA-authorised solicitors’ firm and does not conduct litigation or exercise reserved rights of audience on a client’s behalf. Obtain appropriately regulated legal advice where needed. Comparative foreign law is not binding in England and Wales.