End of an era?
I’m away at the moment, trying to decompress after another year that can be best described as a mixed bag. Some joy, some loss, much hard work.
But as the clock strikes midnight at the end of 2025 I will shed one hat and put on another. I will stop being the Chair of the Transparency Project, and become (as if by magic) the Vice Chair of the FLBA.
My feelings are mixed about this too. Excitement and trepidation about the FLBA, and sadness and hope about the Transparency Project. It isn’t healthy for any one organisation to have the same leader forever, so I hope that in stepping down from the TP I will also free it up to become something more than ‘Lucy’s pet project’ (it is much more than that, because it has always been very much a team effort, but that is the perception), and something more enduring. I’ll still be involved in TP, but it’s time for others to take it forward.
In the same way, I hope that new hands and eyes at the FLBA will also do that organisation some good – whilst Leslie Samuels and I have been around on the FLBA committee (and Leslie as an officer) for some years, we are both relative newcomers in comparison to the outgoing chair, James Roberts. I don’t think the members of the FLBA fully appreciate the work he has put in on their behalf over the years, and the impact that work has had, so although I am undoubtedly nothing like a clone of James (the mind boggles at such an idea), I do know that whatever Leslie and I are able to achieve during our terms of office will be based upon that solid foundation. We have much to thank James for and a lot to live up to.
Anyway, this is all very worthy. I hope that this short post finds you well, that it will go out on cue at its scheduled time and that it will find its way into your inbox whilst you are sipping a lovely drink on a very squishy sofa – whether that drink is a delightful chablis, a sloe gin, a pina colada or a hot chocolate – and that you will have had some brief respite from the onslaught of time sensitive and emotionally taxing work that we all do.
May 2026 bring you peace and contentment. Look after yourselves x
When it’s all TMI
I had plans this week. To finish my VAT return early, tie up all my loose ends and publish a stellar post on Pink Tape to see out 2025 with. But I was waylaid. Partly by some lurgis, which I have finally vanquished, and partly due to a troublesome phone download. So instead you get this dross. Digital data...phone downloads to be precise. Every member of the family bar has been there. Fear of your search filters filtering out the nugget of important information means that it sometimes feels easier to just ask for all data from a device within a specified time period. Except. If the person who owns that phone is under the age of 40 the likelihood is that what will be produced is a haystack of mountainous proportions, liberally sprinkled with things they don't want other people to see and which, frankly, we don't much want to look at either. And things which need urgent weeding or redacting. And when that happens some poor sod (usually counsel) is going to have to sift through it....
Chat GPT prompts – relied upon as evidence
I suppose it was only a matter of time. Here is a short post by Matthew Lee - a barrister who is tracking all things AI in law so you don't have to - about how chat GPT prompts were adduced in evidence in family proceedings, much in the same way as internet search history is often relied upon. Matthew's post is here, and the original judgment he is writing about is here. As Matthew points out, Chat GPT prompts are not quite the same as internet searches, and their meaning and what they might reveal about a person's motivations will be very fact specific - but it seems to me that, as with internet searches, they do have potential in some cases to be really quite important evidence. The most obvious example is queries in the aftermath of an unexplained injury by a carer, which reveal their knowledge of injury or of particular mechanisms. The circumstances in this case were much more obviously susceptible to multiple different explanations, but that doesn't mean that these searches will...
Publication of adverse findings against professional witnesses – helpful Court of Appeal clarification
There is, in my experience, often much consternation about what is required when a judge makes adverse criticism or findings in respect of a professional or expert witness, and then proposes to publish that judgment, particularly if the proposal is that the professional in question should be named. Read carefully Re W [2016] provides the answer, but it often isn't read carefully and I think it's effect is frequently overstated (its often interpreted as requiring everyone to be notified and potentially intervened wherever there is a possibility of an adverse finding, which is never what Re W said). The Judicial Press Office has just circulated this judgment of the Court of Appeal: E (A Child) [2025] EWCA Civ 1563 which, although only a permission judgment, they have specifically said is citable, in order to provide some clarification on this vexed topic. That clarification is welcome. The headline is: We consider it important to emphasise the exceptional nature of Re W and to...
We’re back! Sort of…
Apparently, Pink Tape is fixed....but I have been distracted this weekend by...well... by having a weekend off. Like a normal person. Have cleaned house, cooked a roast, crocheted some crochet and contemplated buying some Christmas presents. All very normal and yet alarmingly unfamiliar (apart from the crochet bit). So, exciting posts about legal executives, the death of jury trial* and assorted other things vaguely law related will have to wait until the stars align so that I have both time and motivation. They seem rarely to coincide these days. We put Christmas music on today. Felt like it was time, even though it is still technically November. Kids and cousins watched The Snowman (Startin' early cos we are going on holiday on Boxing Day). I am warming up / winding down to a proper break before 2026 starts properly. Anyway, if this works, it will arrive cheerily in your inbox tomorrow morning. So - sorry for the anticlimax and all, but may I be the first to say Happy Christmas!...
Lawyer v AI [2025] PT (Fam) – Some thoughts for litigants in person on the risks of using AI in your Family Court case
If I had a quid for every email that comes into my inbox about the use of AI in law, I’d be retiring. Horror stories about lawyers misusing AI, lying about using AI, dire warnings about hallucinations, guidance for judges on using AI, warnings from data protection gurus about the perils of using AI for your case, relentless offers of software and better legal research tools powered by AI, speeches by judges about the future of AI*, news articles by evangelical professors about how AI will replace us all before too long, dedicated blogs from lawyers attempting to track all the horror stories….and surprisingly few about use of AI by litigants in person. So, what about litigants in person? In the family court there are vast numbers of litigants in person (LiPs), mostly in dispute about finances or children after a separation. It stands to reason that LiPs are using AI in preparation for their Family Court hearings. Why wouldn’t they? Everyone else is doing it and its right there at the...
About this blog
“Pink Tape” isn’t just about family law. I post about topics that interest me, which mostly revolve around family law, but also include non-legal family-related topics as well as unrelated subjects. I hope this blog will convince at least one person that not all of us in the legal profession are money-hungry sharks. Some of us are actually quite nice. Additionally, I aim to provide useful information about family law for those working in the field without being too heavy or boring.
The primary goal of the blog is to improve the quality of public information and discussions about legal issues.
I understand that not everyone is a fan of “Pink Tape” or family lawyers in general.
latest
Blog Posts
End of an era?
I'm away at the moment, trying to decompress after another year that can be best described as a mixed bag. Some joy, some loss, much hard work. But as the clock strikes midnight at the end of 2025 I will shed one hat and put on another. I will stop being the Chair of...
When it’s all TMI
I had plans this week. To finish my VAT return early, tie up all my loose ends and publish a stellar post on Pink Tape to see out 2025 with. But I was waylaid. Partly by some lurgis, which I have finally vanquished, and partly due to a troublesome phone download. So...
Chat GPT prompts – relied upon as evidence
I suppose it was only a matter of time. Here is a short post by Matthew Lee - a barrister who is tracking all things AI in law so you don't have to - about how chat GPT prompts were adduced in evidence in family proceedings, much in the same way as internet search...
Publication of adverse findings against professional witnesses – helpful Court of Appeal clarification
There is, in my experience, often much consternation about what is required when a judge makes adverse criticism or findings in respect of a professional or expert witness, and then proposes to publish that judgment, particularly if the proposal is that the...
We’re back! Sort of…
Apparently, Pink Tape is fixed....but I have been distracted this weekend by...well... by having a weekend off. Like a normal person. Have cleaned house, cooked a roast, crocheted some crochet and contemplated buying some Christmas presents. All very normal and yet...
Lawyer v AI [2025] PT (Fam) – Some thoughts for litigants in person on the risks of using AI in your Family Court case
If I had a quid for every email that comes into my inbox about the use of AI in law, I’d be retiring. Horror stories about lawyers misusing AI, lying about using AI, dire warnings about hallucinations, guidance for judges on using AI, warnings from data protection...
What is the difference between a ‘QLR’ and a QLR?
It's Friday. I've been staring at a screen all day and my eyes have gone funny from scrolling through spreadsheets. I need a change of scene before resuming the trawl. Or failing that a change of topic. Aha. I'll tackle that QLR judgment. I tell you now, I am...
Joining the dots…
Last week the Public Accounts Committee published a damning report telling us that family justice was failing families, that delay was an endemic problem, and that the system was fragmented, rubbish with data, lacked transparency and accountability, and as a result...
Colleagues, we have a problem
Harriet Harman KC's report is out. It brings with it a complicated mix of depression and optimism: depression (but not surprise) at how bad things are, and optimism because this report was commissioned by the Bar Council on our behalf and is now being embraced by it....
Rules of the blog
Anonymized or fictional
All the information on this blog is anonymized or fictional to avoid causing any trouble for anyone, including myself. I have modified details to prevent the identification of specific cases.
Comments
I won’t approve comments that, in my judgment, breach privacy laws related to family matters. Unless individuals have been identified in a published judgment, I won’t disclose their involvement in any proceedings.
Nothing Defamatory
I will not post anything that I believe could be considered defamatory. Due to time constraints, I can’t fact-check every statement in a comment. Therefore, I must be cautious to prevent potential legal issues or threatening letters. If you’re certain that a comment is not defamatory, you can publish it elsewhere at your own risk.
NOT Legal Advice
The content of this blog is not intended to constitute legal advice, so please don’t interpret it as such. It may seem relevant to your situation, but it likely isn’t. I cannot be held responsible for any reliance you place on its contents.
Accuracy
The information on the blog is as accurate and up to date as possible, considering my other commitments. Pink Tape is a hobby that I work on when time allows. Therefore, I can’t cover all legal changes or update information that becomes outdated.
External Links
I cannot be held responsible for the content of external sites linked from this blog, in terms of their accuracy or the opinions expressed on them
Moderation
I’ve implemented comment moderation on this blog to filter out comments that are repeatedly negative or offensive about lawyers. Rest assured, I won’t block sensible contributions, even if they disagree with me. I will strive to moderate promptly, but occasionally a comment may get lost in spam.
Right of Reply
If a post contains an inaccuracy about you and you’d like it corrected, feel free to comment for a right of reply. Please respect that the content on this blog is my intellectual property, and ask for permission before reposting. If you have any topics or blog post suggestions, feel free to email me at familoo@pinktape.co.uk.
Copyright
All material on this site is copyright of Lucy Reed. Please do not reproduce without permission.