Mother’s use of AI in family case ‘entirely understandable’, CoA finds

A mother has been absolved by the Court of Appeal of any intention to mislead the court after her ‘erroneous’ authority citation in a family court case.

The mother, who represented herself in a hearing, submitted a ‘lengthy’ skeleton argument citing authorities, some of which were non-existent while others were irrelevant. An earlier document, in which the mother set out why the district judge in her case should recuse himself, included citations which ‘did not exist at all’. In the appeal hearing, the mother ‘accepted that she has used artificial intelligence to assist her in preparing the document’.

Lord Justice Baker, with whom Lord Justice Cobb and Lord Justice Miles agreed, expressed sympathy for litigants in person, finding it ‘is entirely understandable’ that LiPs resort to AI for help. However, all parties, represented and unrepresented, ‘owe a duty to the court to ensure that cases cited in legal argument are genuine and provide authority for the proposition advanced’, he said.

In D (a child) (recusal), the judge said: ‘I absolve the mother of any intention to mislead the court. Litigants in person are in a difficult position putting forward legal arguments.

‘Used properly and responsibly, artificial intelligence can be of assistance to litigants and lawyers when preparing cases. But it is not an authoritative or infallible body of legal knowledge. There are a growing number of reports of “hallucinations” infecting legal arguments through the citation of cases for propositions for which they are not authority and, in some instances, the citation of cases that do not exist at all.

‘At worst, this may lead to the other parties and the court being misled. In any event, it means that extra time is taken and costs are incurred in cross-checking and correcting the errors.’

The judgment dealt with three appeals arising from applications for child arrangements and other orders and the father's appeal of the district judge's decision to recuse himself. Noting that ‘the process by which the district judge recused himself was irregular’ the judgment concluded there was ‘nothing in the judgment or….in the transcript of the evidence to support the mother’s assertion of apparent bias’.