Talking Family Law – the Resolution Podcast

Listen to Resolution’s podcast, with guest experts discussing topical issues in Family Law, with our hosts Simon Blain and Anita Mehta.

We have now recorded over 40 episodes. Each episode is a deep dive into a particular aspect of family law. We cover general training as well as topical issues across the full spectrum of family law, from financial remedy and intervenors to abduction, private, and public law.

In each episode, we ask our guests to explain what the law is at the date of recording. This includes the leading authority or relevant statute, practical tips, and thoughts for reform. Expect lively debate and personal insights. We encourage our guests to take part in open discussion as a way of providing legal commentary, on the understanding that no one is held to the views expressed on the podcast. Next week, they may argue the opposite on behalf of their clients.

We hope the podcast gives you a sense of what Resolution is all about, and that you consider joining us if you like what you hear. More importantly, this is our way of giving back to the family law community. Whoever you are, and wherever you’re based, this podcast gives you access to insights from the country’s leading experts. There is no need to pay a fee or travel to hear them speak. Instead, you can simply download the episode and listen on your way to work.

All we ask in return is that you share this link to the podcast with a friend or colleague who might be interested.

We were thrilled to be shortlisted for the Family Law Commentator of the Year award at the 2023 LexisNexis Awards. We were even more thrilled to win it in 2024!

Hosts Simon Blain and Anita Mehta with Resolution staff at the LexisNexis Awards 2023

Listen on the go:

 

DISCLAIMER:  Nothing in any of the episodes is supposed to constitute legal advice.  We invite our guests to express personal views by way of legal commentary, this may differ from how they put their client’s case.

No liability is accepted for any error or omission about the law in respect of a particular topic.

S5 Episode 9: LIVE from National Conference: AI and the Risk of Bias

About this episode

Hosted by: Anita Mehta and Simon Blain

Guests: The Honourable Mr Justice McKendrick and Professor Rosemary Hunter KC

Further information

Resolution’s National Conference in 2026 kicked off with our keynote session looking at the impact of AI in the justice system, including the benefits of being able to deliver justice more efficiency and the risk of it perpetuating bias that exists in the system.   We wanted to find a topic that would give our audience lots to were privileged to be joined by The Honourable Mr Justice McKendrick and Professor Rosemary Hunter King Counsel (Lead author of the Harm Panel 2020 report and co-author of the Everyday Business report 2025). 

Judge tells us that the Chancellor of the High Court, the Rt Hon Lord Justice Birss is the lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence, with an allocated senior for criminal, civil and family justice.  Mr Justice McKendrick is the lead judge for AI in family justice.

The Judge makes the point that AI is transforming society, and justice needs to keep up with that development.  The judiciary already has access to its own confidential AI system, and guidance was issued to the judiciary in October 2025: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Artificial-Intelligence-AI-Guidance-for-Judicial-Office-Holders-2.pdf

That system can summarise bundles, summarising judgments for litigants with special educational needs, AI to translate or transcript audio, as AI hallucination checker.  However, judicial decisions always remain the responsibility of the Judge. In the same way that the High Court judiciary already have access to a judicial assistant, but decisions are made by the Judge.

Rosemary explains that there are deliberate biases in the system which we all think is a good thing, for example the child’s welfare being the paramount consideration is a form of bias.  The concern therefore only arises in respect of biases that give a party an unjustified disadvantage.  Rosemary gives example of the research in the Harm report about the ‘pro-contact culture’, which is a form of bias.  Rosemary makes the point that over-reliance on AI could lead to jurisprudential ossification i.e. continuing to use the determination that is already available rather than responding to adapting views.

The Judge referred to a speech by The President of the King’s Bench division https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-the-president-of-the-kings-bench-division-the-mayflower-lecture-2025/

The difference between prediction and reasoning.  That lecture goes on to look at the fact that AI is predicting based on past outcomes, whereas Judges are reasoning.  Therefore, the Judge argues there is always a difference between the judicial outcome of reasoning to the outcome and AI predicting the likely outcome based on previous data.

We went on to consider a number of judicial lectures including:

Finally, we concluded with a discussion about the debate in the House of Lords about the future of financial remedy law https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-11-10/debates/1492EA41-F82F-4148-A8AB-C0F8CB5B78B7/FinancialProvisionOnDivorce

We conclude with wondering whether AI is going to fuel litigation and driving litigants to issue, or whether it will help litigants to find consensual solutions and remove unrealistic expectations, as yet it is impossible to know.

  • Let us know your ideas

  • Let us know issues we should cover, people we could invite on or other ideas you have for the Resolution podcast:

  • If you'd like us to contact you, please leave your contact information below: