Not long ago, clients typically arrived at an initial appointment having spoken to friends, family members or perhaps having done a quick Google search. It was very common for clients to base their expectations on the outcome of ‘their mate from the pub’ and their particular outcome around 10 years ago in entirely different factual and/or financial circumstances.
Now they arrive having spent hours consuming family law content on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and AI platforms such as ChatGPT. Often this can lead to firmly formed views about what the law is and how their case will unfold.
As family lawyers, we are used to correcting misconceptions. But the rise of short-form and AI generated legal content has changed both the scale and the nature of the challenge.
Clients now frequently attend meetings ‘pre-advised’ by social media, referring to their ‘AI solicitor’. They may have watched videos confidently asserting that they will get ‘sole custody’ in proceedings involving children, that assets are automatically divided 50/50 on divorce and they can definitely stay in their house, or that a spouse’s conduct will dramatically affect the financial outcome. In reality, this is not the case and a client’s specific circumstances will be highly important.
While instant access to guiding principles of family law is incredibly helpful for clients, particularly in light of the current economic climate and cuts to publicly funded legal services, the difficulty is that some of this content is inaccurate. The reality of family law in England and Wales is highly fact-specific and discretionary. Explaining that to a client can be difficult when they have already watched a 90-second clip or received a neatly summarised AI outcome promising a definitive answer.
This can have a tangible impact on practice. Unrealistic expectations can make negotiations more difficult and can increase distrust where legal advice does not align with what a client has seen online. It can also contribute to conflict between parties, particularly where one or both individuals are engaging with content which frames family proceedings as battles to be won rather than problems to be resolved constructively, entirely at odds with the approach of Resolution.
Social media is not entirely negative. There is undoubtedly value in improving public legal awareness and making legal information more accessible. Many people would never approach a solicitor at all without first encountering legal content online. Some creators explain procedures clearly, challenge stigma around separation and encourage people to seek advice at an earlier stage. In that sense, social media can help demystify the family justice system. The rise of legal influencers raises an important challenge for the profession: how can family lawyers make the law more accessible and engaging while still preserving accuracy, empathy and professional integrity?
However, the increase of online legal content also raises professional and ethical questions for practitioners themselves.
Family law is uniquely sensitive. Unlike some other areas of practice, the facts involved are often intensely personal and emotionally charged. There is a fine line between discussing trends in practice and risking breaches of confidentiality.
Even where names and identifying details are removed, family lawyers must be cautious about sharing anecdotes or case studies on public platforms. Clients may recognise themselves, as may former partners or family members. In smaller communities or niche factual scenarios, anonymisation may not be enough. There is also the wider issue of maintaining public confidence in the profession. Clients need to feel secure that the details they share in moments of crisis will not later become content.
Further, clients must be advised of the risks of inputting confidential information into AI platforms, such as ChatGPT. Communication between solicitors and clients for the purposes of giving and receiving legal advice is ‘privileged’ unless a client consents to it being disclosed. Uploading sensitive information to AI platforms may risk breaching court orders, compromising confidentiality and potentially undermining claims to privilege. While clients might think it is a sure way to short-circuit legal advice and fees, it may do more harm to them and their case than good.
There is also a broader question about how we, as practitioners, should respond to misinformation online. It is easy to dismiss “TikTok lawyers”, but doing so may overlook why this content resonates in the first place. Family law processes can feel inaccessible and intimidating. Legal jargon, costs and court delays can leave clients searching elsewhere for clarity and reassurance. There is room for content that is accessible without being sensationalist, informative without promising certainty, and empathetic without fuelling conflict.
As Resolution members, we focus our practice and daily working lives around reducing unnecessary confrontation and promoting constructive approaches to family disputes. Social media and AI spaces present a new way for us to put those principles to use.
Amber Gregory, Associate, Tees Law and Membership Officer for Cambridge & West Suffolk Resolution.
Read the Good Practice Guide to Social Media Use
