In the landscape of modern family law, the allure of Artificial Intelligence is becoming increasingly difficult for the average person to resist. Sally Powell, a partner at the law firm Tees Law, observes that many individuals navigating a divorce are turning to generative AI tools to demystify complex legal procedures, organize mounds of paperwork, and prepare financial disclosures. While these tools offer a tempting promise of autonomy and cost-cutting, Powell warns that they often serve as a double-edged sword. Rather than streamlining the path toward a settlement, the reliance on algorithmic assistance frequently entrenches unrealistic expectations and produces legally flawed agreements that, in the long run, inflate the very costs the clients were hoping to avoid.
The core of the problem lies in the human tendency toward confirmation bias. Powell points out that when a client inputs their situation into an AI, they are often unconsciously “leading” the technology to confirm what they already want to believe. Because the user is looking for an outcome that feels fair—or favorable—to them, the AI generates a “mirror effect,” reflecting the user’s own biases back at them with a veneer of authoritative, professional-sounding language. This leaves many clients walking into a solicitor’s office with a false sense of certainty, unaware that they have been operating within an echo chamber. The AI lacks the nuance of real-world context; it can retrieve data, but it cannot exercise the essential human judgment required to determine whether that data is relevant, persuasive, or even accurate.
Powell’s professional experience has revealed the dangerous pitfalls of mistaking polished presentation for legal substance. In one instance, a couple spent weeks negotiating a financial settlement using AI, even going so far as to draft their own consent order. When they finally brought the document to their lawyers, they were shocked to discover it was fundamentally flawed, omitting critical statutory cut-off points for maintenance and including irrelevant details the court would never consider. By attempting to bypass professional guidance, they essentially wasted hours of effort and incurred more expense, as their lawyers had to spend additional time correcting the errors and untangling the mess created by the technology.
Beyond mere errors, AI often fails to see the “big picture” of a legal case. Powell highlights a situation where an AI correctly informed a client they would have to wait 12 months for a divorce, yet entirely missed the fact that, based on the specific circumstances of their marriage, the client was actually eligible for an annulment. This is where the gap between software and experience becomes stark: an algorithm provides a technically correct answer based on a narrow query, but a human lawyer identifies the alternative pathways that best serve the client’s interests. Similarly, when it comes to complex financial orders, AI often relies on broad generalizations, failing to account for the nuances of case law—such as the reality that financial claims can persist long after a marriage has ended if not properly dismissed by a court order.
As the legal profession grapples with this shift, the burden on solicitors is evolving. Powell notes that they are increasingly dealing with a surge of repetitive, out-of-context correspondence generated by AI, which consumes time and complicates the discovery process. However, this is not to say that AI is entirely without merit. If used as a tool for organizing timelines, managing administrative tasks, or providing a general overview of standard procedures, it can be helpful. The goal, according to Powell, is to leverage these efficiencies while maintaining the professional oversight that keeps the legal process grounded in reality. She draws an analogy to a master tradesperson: the value isn’t just in the time taken to complete the job, but in the decades of experience that allow them to know exactly how—and where—to apply their tools to ensure the fix actually lasts.
Ultimately, the future of family law will likely involve a harmonious blend of human wisdom and digital utility, provided that clients treat AI as an assistant rather than a legal oracle. The risks of “hallucinated” case law and the potential for severe, irreversible damage to one’s financial or parental future make it clear that there is no shortcut for human expertise. As technology continues to permeate the legal sphere, the emphasis must remain on transparency, security, and a commitment to protecting those in the midst of life’s most vulnerable transitions. AI may be able to organize a file beautifully, but it cannot navigate the emotional and strategic complexities of a human life; for that, there remains no substitute for the experience and accountability of a qualified lawyer.