Artificial intelligence in family law proceedings: A trusted advisor, or a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms such as Chat GPT, Claude and Microsoft Copilot can be useful tools. They may assist with administrative tasks, explain legal concepts in plain language, and improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness for lawyers, experts and people representing themselves in court.

However, AI must be used carefully. In particular, it can create significant privacy, confidentiality and accuracy risks that can make what seems like a safe, cheap bet a risky bet that can see your rights evaporate and might cost you more than you think it if results in a costs order against you.

FCFCOA Practice Directions

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (the Court) has issued a Practice Direction concerning the use of AI. It makes clear that lawyers, parties and experts must use these tools responsibly when involved in court proceedings. You can find the Practice Direction here - https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/pd/pd-ai.

Key expectations include:

• Do not enter confidential, privileged or sensitive information into public AI platforms. AI should not be used for confidential legal work.

• Carefully check the accuracy of any information or documents generated using AI - is the case you're putting into your submissions even a real case? Do you know where to find the real case to cross-check the AI?

• Maintain control over court documents, evidence and submissions - if you're thinking about uploading court documents to Chat GPT, just don't.

• Remain personally responsible for all material provided to the Court, even where AI has been used to assist with its preparation - the Judge won't care that Claude made a mistake when making a costs order against you. You're responsible for what you file.

Real world examples - and no the cases are not hallucinated - you can look them up

The Court has recently considered a number of cases in which AI fell flat in family law proceedings. In several matters, lawyers have been referred to professional regulatory bodies after filing documents containing incorrect citations or references to cases that do not exist.

You should ask your lawyer what AI they are using and if they can't explain it to you, run...

You're either getting charged too much for a paralegal to do what AI could do for a fraction of the cost, they don't know what customised, closed AI platform their firm uses (which means they probably don't use it, or they don't want to tell you. Again, run... come talk to us, we can answer all the above questions.

AI can sometimes generate convincing but false information. This is often described as an AI “hallucination”. It can include invented cases, incorrect quotations, or real cases that do not support the argument being made. AI works best when the right AI platform is combined with qualified, real world legal experience.

Self-represented parties have also encountered difficulties where they have relied on AI to prepare court documents without independently checking the information produced.

Dayal [2024] Fed CFam C 2 F 1166

In Dayal, a Victorian solicitor relied on authorities that did not exist. The solicitor told the Court that the documents had been prepared using AI and accepted that the information generated had not been checked.

The Judge referred the solicitor to the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner in relation to the improper use of AI. We're not sure if they are still practising.

Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] Fed CFam C 1 A 163

In Helmold, the Full Court dismissed an appeal brought by a self-represented party who had used AI to prepare court documents.

Those documents referred to invented cases, as well as genuine cases that did not support the party’s argument. The Court emphasised that all parties have a duty not to mislead the Court or other parties. It noted that reliance on unverified AI-generated material can create confusion and unnecessarily complicate proceedings. This adds to the costs of the other party, and in some cases, more likely when the additional cost is no fault of the other party, the Court can make a costs order for the offending party to pay the legal costs of the innocent party.

The decision reinforces that anyone using AI must check the accuracy of the material before relying on it in court.

Mertz & Mertz (No 3) [2025] Fed CFam C 1 A 222

In Mertz, the Full Court referred the conduct of the appellant’s legal representatives to the relevant professional bodies.

A solicitor’s office had used AI in preparing a Summary of Argument and List of Authorities. Although the solicitor said she had not personally used AI, she accepted that a paralegal in her office had used it to prepare the initial documents without her knowledge.

The Court was critical of the lack of information about the AI program used, and the apparent absence of training, supervision or guidance regarding its use. The decision confirms that lawyers remain responsible for the accuracy of documents filed with the Court, even where work is delegated to others.

Jenson & Lockridge (No 2) [2026] Fed CFam C 1 A 44

In Jenson, a self-represented appellant used AI to develop grounds of appeal, prepare a Summary of Argument and assist with oral submissions. The appellant said she had used a “professional” AI platform used by law firm.

The Court referred to the decision in Helmold and dismissed the appeal.

We treat AI like a paralegal. It's helpful and with time they become increasingly knowledgeable and helpful, but we don't ask a paralegal to prepare a final draft of an affidavit, application or submissions. We don't send unqualified paralegals into Court. Don't leave your case in the hands of an AI paralegal.

Privacy and publication concerns

There are also important privacy considerations in family law matters. Uploading court documents, personal information or details of family law proceedings to an AI platform may create risks under section 114 Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which restricts publication of information relating to family law proceedings.

Family law documents commonly contain highly sensitive information about children, family violence, health, finances and personal relationships. That information should not be uploaded to an AI platform without careful consideration of confidentiality, privacy and legal obligations.

If you are found to be "disseminating" restricted documents, the penalties can be serious, up to and including a term of imprisonment. Dissemination under section 114 of the Act is an indictable criminal offence. If the word indictable doesn't scare you, the maximum statutory penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment should.

Key takeaway

AI may be a useful support tool, but it is not a substitute for experience, careful legal research or professional advice.

Any material prepared with the assistance of AI must be independently reviewed and verified before it is relied upon in court. You can do this yourself, and good luck to you, or you can give us a call and we can review your case with you for free and hope you haven't already gone down the rabbit hole.

For legal representatives, the use of AI does not reduce our professional responsibilities. For parties to family law proceedings, obtaining advice from an experienced family lawyer remains the safest way to ensure that court documents and legal arguments are accurate, appropriate and properly prepared. Contact us now to avoid the risk and uncertainty.