Using AI to Prepare Court Documents? What Litigants in Person Need to Know
If you're representing yourself in a family court case, you've probably considered using ChatGPT or another AI tool to help draft your paperwork. You're not alone. A recent ruling from the Employment Appeal Tribunal shows just how common this has become, and it sets out clearly what the courts expect from anyone using AI to prepare legal documents.
What happened
A deputy High Court judge, Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, dealt with a case where a litigant in person filed a skeleton argument running to 300 pages and 132,000 words, created using ChatGPT. The litigant asked the other side to flag any inaccuracies by 4pm the following day.
The judge was clear that this approach is not acceptable. Handing an AI-generated document to the court, or to your opponent, without checking it yourself, does not meet the standard the court expects.
The key message for litigants in person
The judge confirmed that using AI to prepare documents like skeleton arguments is not banned. But whether you're a lawyer or representing yourself, you are personally responsible for anything you submit to the court. If concerns arise that a document wasn't properly checked, the court can raise it directly with you, and this could lead to sanctions.
What this means in practice
If you use AI to help prepare any document for your case, the ruling sets out what you need to do before you submit it:
- Make sure the document follows the court's procedural rules
- Check the document as thoroughly as you reasonably can for accuracy
- Confirm that every factual, evidential and legal point is correct, including any case law referenced
- Make sure the document doesn't mislead the court in any way
- Keep the document focused on your strongest points, presented clearly, without unnecessary repetition
The judge also noted that a document like the 300-page skeleton in this case would likely be rejected outright under current procedural rules.
Why this matters for divorce and financial remedy cases
Family courts are seeing the same pattern. More litigants in person are turning to AI tools to draft applications, statements, and skeleton arguments. AI can be a genuinely useful starting point, but it can also produce inaccurate case citations, misstate the law, or generate arguments that don't hold up under scrutiny. If you submit that content without checking it, the responsibility sits with you, not with the tool you used.
How to use AI responsibly in your case
- Use it to organise your thoughts or produce a first draft, not a final document
- Cross-check every legal reference against the original source
- Read the entire document yourself before it goes anywhere near the court
- If something looks too polished or too confident, verify it rather than trust it
- Get a second pair of eyes on anything going to the court, whether that's a McKenzie Friend, a solicitor, or someone with relevant experience
This information is general and does not constitute legal advice. If you're unsure how AI use might affect your specific case, speak to a family law professional.