Written by: Anthony Saba, Special Counsel | Ramsden Family Law | Published: 23 July 2026
Since 29 May 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) has had a formal Practice Direction on Artificial Intelligence. It applies to lawyers and self-represented parties and requires anyone using AI in a family law matter to verify AI-generated content, protect confidential and privileged information, and be able to explain their use of AI if the Court asks. Getting it wrong has already resulted in a $10,000 personal costs order against a solicitor.
What is the FCFCOA’s new AI Practice Direction?
On 29 May 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia introduced a Practice Direction specifically governing the use of AI in family law matters, one of the first jurisdictions in Australia to do so. Before this, parties and lawyers had to rely on general professional ethical obligations and non-specific practice notes from other courts, with no clear, family-law-specific framework.
The Practice Direction is built on the Court’s existing legal duties, applied to AI: integrity, accuracy, accountability, compliance with professional obligations, confidentiality, and data security. It is explicit that a lack of understanding of how an AI tool works is not an excuse for getting something wrong. If you use AI, you are expected to understand its risks and limitations first.
Critically, the Practice Direction applies to everyone, not just lawyers, but self-represented litigants and parties preparing their own documents.
What is an “AI hallucination,” and why does it matter in court?
An AI hallucination is when a generative AI tool produces information (such as a case citation, legal principle, or quote) that sounds plausible and authoritative but is factually false or entirely invented. In a legal setting, this typically shows up as fake case law or misstated legal principles presented with full confidence, which is exactly what makes it dangerous: nothing about the output signals that it isn’t real.
What happens if AI is misused in family law proceedings?
Two recent cases show how seriously the Court now treats this.
Mertz & Mertz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 222. A solicitor filed a Summary of Argument and List of Authorities in appellate proceedings that had been prepared using AI. The firm later acknowledged this. The consequences were immediate: the solicitor was ordered to pay the other party $10,000 in costs and was referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.
Tesar & Szep (No 3) [2026] Justice Brasch criticised submissions that were, in the Court’s words, “redolent with faulty and fictitious citations.” The case illustrates how AI chatbots can confidently invent case law that simply doesn’t exist, and how easily that can end up in filed court documents if it isn’t checked.
The Court’s position is unequivocal: AI has the capacity to confuse, add unnecessary complexity, and mislead both the Court and the other party.
What are your obligations when using AI in a family law matter?
The Practice Direction sets out obligations that apply whether you’re a lawyer or a self-represented party:
| Obligation | What it means in practice |
| Protect confidential and privileged information | Don’t enter confidential or sensitive information into public AI tools unless proper safeguards are in place, since generative AI tools can retain, store, or expose your inputs to third parties |
| Extra caution with court materials | Discovery/disclosure material, suppression or non-publication orders, and subpoenas must never go into a generative AI tool unless it operates in a secure, controlled environment that doesn’t use the data for training or other purposes |
| Verify everything AI produces | Always check AI-generated content, especially legal authorities and case citations, before relying on or filing it |
| Maintain control over your documents | AI is a tool to assist, not a substitute for your own or your lawyer’s professional judgment |
| Be accountable | You remain responsible for anything AI helps you produce, including errors |
| Be ready to explain your AI use | If the Court asks how AI was used in preparing a document, you need to be able to answer |
Do I have to disclose that I used AI in my family law documents?
The Practice Direction doesn’t require blanket disclosure on every document, but it does require that you can explain your use of AI if the Court asks. Given the costs and consequences seen in Mertz & Mertz, the safer practice is to treat any significant reliance on AI, particularly for legal research or drafting submissions, as something you should be prepared to account for.
Key takeaways
- Do not input confidential or privileged information into public AI tools.
- Always verify AI-generated content, including legal authorities and case citations.
- Maintain control over your documents and evidence. AI is a tool, not a substitute for professional judgment.
- Remain accountable for your use of AI.
- Be prepared to explain your use of AI if questioned by the Court.
How Ramsden Family Law can help
If you are navigating a family law matter, including questions about how AI can and can’t be used in preparing your case, our experienced family law specialists at Ramsden Family Law can help. We provide the legal support and guidance you need to protect your interests, including practical advice on using AI tools safely and in compliance with the Court’s requirements.
Contact us today if you would like to speak with an experienced family lawyer.
Frequently Asked Questions
CAN I USE AI IN MY FAMILY LAW DOCUMENTS IN AUSTRALIA?
You can, but the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia’s AI Practice Direction (effective 29 May 2026) requires you to verify all AI-generated content, protect confidential and privileged information, maintain control over your documents, remain accountable for your use of AI, and be prepared to explain that use if the Court asks.
WHAT IS THE FCFCOA PRACTICE DIRECTION ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE?
It is a Practice Direction introduced on 29 May 2026 that governs how AI can be used in family law matters in Australia, applying to lawyers and self-represented parties alike. It is grounded in existing legal duties of integrity, accuracy, accountability, and confidentiality, applied specifically to AI use.
WHAT HAPPENS IF AI-GENERATED ERRORS END UP IN FAMILY COURT DOCUMENTS?
Consequences can be significant. In Mertz & Mertz (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1A 222, a solicitor was ordered to personally pay $10,000 in costs and was referred to the Legal Services Commissioner after AI-prepared documents were filed. In Tesar & Szep (No 3) [2026], the Court criticised submissions containing fictitious case citations.
DO SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES HAVE TO FOLLOW THE AI PRACTICE DIRECTION TOO?
Yes. The Practice Direction applies to self-represented litigants and parties, not only to lawyers and law firms.
One tip for the accordion build: keep this same wording consistent with the FAQ schema code if you end up adding that too, since matching the visible text to the schema is what makes it eligible for AI/search engines to cite it.
The content of this article is intended to provide general guidance on the subject matter and must not be relied on as legal advice. Specific advice should be sought about your circumstances.
