Family Court judge criticises way independent social worker used AI

In Cornwall Council v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 306 (30 September 2026), Her Honour Judge Flexman examined the extent to which Microsoft Copilot had been used to organise information, summarise notes and generate report content.

The comments came during a final hearing in respect of three children, A, B and C. As part of the case, the judge heard oral evidence from Independent Social Worker (ISW) Henrietta Coker, the social worker, the father and the guardian.

One of the issues that arose was the use by Coker of an AI tool - Microsoft CoPilot - to compile her report.

HHJ Flexman pointed to 'Guidance for Expert Witnesses on the Use of AI’, published by The Academy of Experts, the professional society and accrediting body for expert witnesses, in January 2026.

In the foreword to that report, the Rt Hon Lord Neiberger of Abbotsbury notes:

“A proper and updated understanding of the appropriate use, benefits and drawbacks of AI is vital for anyone concerned with the processing of information. And that is particularly true for those people whose work is of public significance, and that plainly extends to all those working in the legal system, and in particular in the field of dispute resolution. Expert witnesses play an important - I believe an increasingly important - role in that field. It is therefore vital that all expert witnesses are fully informed and up-to-date about the advantages, limits and risks of using AI when preparing their reports, and about the appropriate information to include in their reports as to their use of AI.”

HHJ Flexman said: “The guidance highlights the need for experts to carefully consider the implications for their work in using AI. It reminds experts that the 'key point is that they remain ultimately responsible for their work product' and summarises the circumstances on which experts may consider using AI, namely:

1. Self-education: using AI to generate explanations or other educational content (for example, training material) regarding technical or complex concepts related to the subject matter of the expert's instruction.
2. Data analysis: using AI to analyse large volumes of data, identifying patterns and insights, and making predictions as to future outcomes.
3. Quality control: using AI to undertake proof-reading or to identify possible errors or inaccuracies in the expert's work product.
4. Summarising content: using AI to condense large amounts of information into summaries, for example, to make it easier for the expert to digest.
5. Generating content: using AI to generate analysis or to create visuals, for example.
6. Enhancing communication: using AI in communications with other stakeholders (for example, to translate text between languages, or to translate jargon into plain language, and to assist in virtual meetings e.g with transcription).”

She added: “The guidance recommends the use of a number of safeguards, unsurprisingly the first of those is 'adequate human oversight.'”

The judge noted that Coker prepared a number of reports for the proceedings, and did not disclose any use of AI tools in the preparation of her original report of 5 June 2026.

It was only when asked questions that Ms Coker provided the following information in her addendum of 7 July 2026:

“Use of AI-Assisted Tools (Microsoft Copilot)

Microsoft Copilot was used within a secure organisational environment as an administrative support tool to:

• organise and structure information already obtained
• assist in drafting the report

It is important to clarify that:

• Copilot did not generate evidence, undertake analysis, or form conclusions
• All analysis, interpretation, and professional judgment are entirely my own
• All content was reviewed, amended, and verified by me prior to finalisation
• I retain full professional responsibility for the report”.

The judge noted that in one of Coker’s kinship assessment reports the following text appeared:

'This wording keeps the tone balanced and analytical while clearly highlighting the changed circumstances since the earlier assessment.'

Considering the issue, HHJ Flexman said: “Insofar as Ms Coker uses CoPilot to digitally transcribe her conversations and assist her with her grammar and spelling then I see no significant issue. Microsoft CoPilot is a closed secure AI tool. There is no risk of publication. The use of that tool for improving language and presentation is a low risk use which would seem to fall within acceptable practice.

“The more significant issue is Ms Coker's use of AI to generate the entirety of her reports. Whilst she maintains that the conclusions are her conclusions; the analysis of the evidence, the sub headings, lay out, construction and development are all AI generated. Moreover, having listened to Ms Coker in evidence, the tone of the report and use of language is very different to Ms Coker's. The use of AI in the way that Ms Coker has used it has placed a significant gap between the voice and opinion of the expert and the report which she has filed.”

Meanwhile, the judge highlighted concerns about the lack of effective safeguarding – noting that the inclusion of CoPilot's own summary demonstrated there had not been “adequate human oversight” of the contents of the report.

She said: “In addition to the significant issues with the use of AI, I found Ms Coker's written and oral evidence to be lacking in rigour and clarity of thought. I do not feel able to place any significant weight on her evidence.”

The case concluded with the making of a final care order for each child.

Lottie Winson