We have survived January! Rejoice!
It really was a loooong month, wasn’t it? Death, storms, and the general dank gloom that comes with this time of year. We escaped actual flooding or storm damage here, but it’s not far from us. Quite apart from the weather though, the flow of urgent tasks has been pretty relentless, there is always a remote meeting in the day’s forecast, and my days have been filled with the usual grim reading material. And my inbox…well the floodwater there has been pretty biblical.
I’ve done a month now as FLBA Vice Chair (one reason for the rising tide of emails). It’s been an eye opener. There is so much work to do, at this toughest of times for the family bar. Lots of my friends and colleagues are desperate for the resumption of legal aid payments but extremely worried about recoupments of the contingency payments. The mood is as dank as the weather. There is talk of people leaving the bar altogether, people who have just had enough, who feel unheard and disrespected, Please keep an eye on your FLBA emails for information and news – and if you aren’t receiving your members emails let us know. It’s important you know what is happening on your behalf and what help we can offer.
On Friday, over a hundred of us (by my guess) attended a valedictory for Rebecca Stevens, a much loved solicitor who died much too young. A salutary reminder that life is short, but also that you should live your passion. She was a little ray of sunshine.
In between the rain and the gloom though, January and February do bring the occasional moment of watery sunshine. Those are the best days, where the cold air bites your face and the bright sky makes you blink. Later on Friday we trudged around the headland with the dog. It was slippery underfoot but cheering. Little green shoots poking out and up along the way are always a reminder that nothing is forever. Kids grow up, parents, pets and friends leave us, and life moves on to another phase. The world is spinning and the tectonic plates are shifting around us as we hyper focus on our cases. At moments we look up and realise we are in a different place and a different time. It’s disorientating. In 2026 I resolved not to have any new years resolutions, but I tell myself I will look up and around more, breathe more, plant my feet on the ground more firmly.
Fond as I am of metaphor and analogy, I can’t promise that the eternal winter is about to come to an end on the fees front, but I can forecast change and turbulence ahead in our work lives. This spring will bring a new President (and a bunch of other appointments to the senior courts), a new practice direction on bundles (oh frabjous day!), the beginning of a return to regular legal aid payments and a (long and bmppy) process of sorting out the issues around VAT, income tax and recoupment that flow from the disastrous hack. Although I don’t know what lies ahead on legal aid fees, I sense an incoming weather system.
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...
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 perplexed by this one. I've been mulling it over in the back of my brain all week and its got me awl of a muddle. In the back of my brain I have been thinking up amusing alternative meanings for 'QLR'....imaginative unabbreviations if you will. Quite Limited Role. Question Lots. Really? Questions Lack Relevance? Questioning Like Rumpole Questioning Lite. Representation? Quite Literally Ridiculous... QLR Law: Resources? Quash Litigants' Rights Quell Litigant Rebellion Quite Like Representation Quixotic, Lost, Rare... Questions Largely Rhetorical Quizzical Looks Required Quick, Let's Run.... QLR Lost? Right.... Enough nonsense. To the case! Which is: K v P (Criminal Solicitor as Court-Appointed QLR) [2025] EWFC 321. (You can tell...
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
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....
Staying Sane in Family Law
The lovely people at Bath Publishing* are running a series of workshops to launch a new book they are publishing by Anne Marie Carvalho. The book is called Staying Sane in Family Law – and the name Anne Marie Carvalho is one which often crops up in the context of...
Court Service Cover Up?
NB I think this post was accidentally published yesterday in half finished form, something that has never happened before. It probably didn't make a lot of sense. However, this is now the tidied and completed version. The BBC Headline reads: Courts service 'covered...
Must D.A.S.H.
The BBC ran a story this week wherein MP Jess Phillips complains that the DASH risk assessment has 'obvious problems' and 'doesn't work'. From a quick read the first impression is that the tool itself is deficient, but that isn't the whole story. The piece also...
How much expectation can you fit in one suitcase?
Well, here I am in the interstitial space between my last case of the summer and the ceremonial packing of the suitcase for ‘the holiday’. The holiday into which I will mentally pack all my hopes and dreams and wellbeing needs, and both more activity and more rest...
A plea for some self restraint
I don't want to sound like your mother, but I can't help noticing that a surprising number of family lawyers have found the ColdPlay accidental affair reveal to be irresistible fodder for a spot of marketing. And as yet another post pops into my LinkedIn feed this...
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.


