By Jenna Georgopoulos, Senior Associate
Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms such as ChatGPT, Claude and Microsoft Copilot, have emerged as a revolutionary tool for streamlining administration, clarifying legal concepts, improving efficiency and reducing costs, both for legal representatives, self-represented litigants and experts.
Notwithstanding its efficiencies, the use of AI requires considerable caution, particularly having regard to the risks involved with privacy and data.
The use of AI is now directly governed by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Practice Direction – Use of Artificial Intelligence (“Practice Directions”), which was issued last Friday, 29 May 2026. The Practice Directions reinforce the clear expectations for lawyers, litigants and experts appearing before the Court. This includes:
There have been a number of recent cases in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (“FCFCOA” or “the Court”), where legal practitioners have been referred to regulatory authorities for the improper use of AI in proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). This has commonly occurred where documents have been filed which contain “hallucinogenic” (that is, cases which do not exist) or refer to erroneous citations. Similarly, self-represented litigants have relied on the use of AI to draft Court documents and inadvertently cited incorrect cases.
In the case of Dayal, a Victorian solicitor relied on case authorities which did not exist. The solicitor informed the Court that the documents were prepared using AI and acknowledged that they did not verify the accuracy of the information generated. Judge A Humphreys referred the legal practitioner to the Office of the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner for the improper use of AI.
In Helmold, the Full Court of the FCFCOA (“Full Court”) dismissed an Appeal brought by a self-represented litigant, who had used AI to prepare their Court documents. It was found that those documents included hallucinated case law together with cases which do exist but did not support the Appellant’s argument. The Full Court held that litigants have a duty not to mislead the Court or the other parties and that relying on unverified AI can cause confusion and unnecessarily complicate the matter. Litigants therefore have an obligation to check the accuracy of what is produced before presenting their case.
In Mertz, the Full Court referred the conduct of the Appellant’s legal representatives to the relevant professional bodies. A solicitor used AI in the preparation of a Summary of Argument and List of Authorities. While the solicitor denied using AI herself, she conceded that a paralegal of her office used AI to prepare the original documents without her knowledge. The Court was critical that the solicitor did not identify which AI program had been used and did not identify what, if any, training, supervision or guidance the paralegal had been given in relation to the use of AI. This decision reiterates that legal practitioners are accountable for accuracy of documents filed with the Court, regardless of whether they delegate tasks.
In Jensen, the self-represented Appellant used AI to formulate the grounds of appeal, draft the Summary of Argument and the content of her oral arguments. The Appellant explained that she had used a “professional” platform of AI which was “used by law firms”. Justice Campton referenced Helmold. The Appeal was dismissed.
Further, it is important to note that uploading Court documents or information to AI platforms may impinge section 114Q of the Act, which prohibits the publication of family law proceedings to the public.
Ultimately, the future use of AI in litigation appears unavoidable, and may be helpful in some cases, but its use and application should be applied with an appropriate degree of oversight, care and consideration.
For legal representatives, where AI is used in the preparation of Court documents, its output must be carefully checked. For litigants, legal research and the production of Court documents ought to be prepared by a qualified legal representative.
If you would like further advice about how this article or AI generally in relation to your family law matter, please contact one of our family lawyers
If you would like further information or have any queries regarding other matters, please do not hesitate to contact:
