More and more people are turning to ChatGPT for advice about their divorce finances. And I’m starting to see a problem that concerns me.
People are asking AI whether their proposed financial settlement is fair, what they’re entitled to and what a judge would decide if their case went to court.
They’re then getting answers that sound remarkably like professional legal advice.
The problem is that ChatGPT is only working with the information it’s been given. And in a divorce, that’s often just one person’s side of the story.
We recently saw an example at Easy Online Divorce that shows just how misleading this can become.
ChatGPT said her divorce settlement was unfair. But was it?
We were helping a couple work through their financial agreement.
The wife was in her early sixties and working part-time. Her husband was approaching 70 and had been planning to retire.
A Declaration of Trust had been put in place around 20 years earlier, recording that the wife owned 80% of the family home and her husband 20%.
The wife wanted that original arrangement reflected in their divorce settlement.
Following discussions about their finances, the proposed agreement would leave them with approximately:
| Wife | Husband | |
|---|---|---|
| Property equity / buyout payment | £296,000 | £64,000 |
| Total assets, including pensions and savings | £400,000 | £300,000 |
| Share of combined assets | 57% | 43% |
Figures are approximate and the husband’s anticipated inheritance is excluded.
There’s an important distinction in those figures.
The wife would keep the family home. Her husband would receive a £64,000 buyout but would no longer own a property.
And although his total assets were around £300,000, approximately £180,000 of that was held in pensions.
So while the wife would receive the larger share of the overall assets, the husband would need to find somewhere to live and work out how to support himself in retirement.
The wife had concerns of her own. She worked part-time, would need a mortgage to fund the buyout and had two adult children living with her.
She turned to ChatGPT to assess the proposed settlement.
And the response was extraordinary.
What ChatGPT told her
ChatGPT produced a detailed assessment using legal terminology, references to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and explanations of how a Family Court judge considers financial settlements.
It focused heavily on the wife’s financial difficulties.
She would need to take out a mortgage. Her income was limited. Her husband was still earning a salary, had savings and was expecting an inheritance.
Based on that information, ChatGPT concluded:
“The judge will almost certainly flag this as a manifestly unfair agreement.”
It went further, suggesting that the payment to her husband should be significantly reduced or even eliminated.
Think about that for a moment.
Under the proposed settlement, the wife was already receiving approximately £400,000 in assets compared with her husband’s £300,000.
She would keep the family home, while he would receive £64,000 and need to find somewhere else to live.
Yet ChatGPT was confidently suggesting that she should receive even more.
Now, I’m not saying the wife was wrong to question the proposed settlement. Her concerns about her mortgage, income and future financial security were perfectly reasonable.
Nor does receiving 57% of the assets automatically mean an agreement is fair.
But there was another side to the story that deserved just as much consideration.
The important details ChatGPT wasn’t properly considering
The husband was approaching 70 and had been planning to retire.
But under the proposed financial arrangements, he could no longer afford to do so.
He would have to continue working to support himself.
That’s a significant detail when assessing someone’s future financial position.
ChatGPT placed considerable emphasis on his current earnings as evidence that he was financially comfortable.
But his income depended on him continuing to work at an age when he’d already planned to retire.
Then there was his housing situation.
He would receive approximately £64,000 from the family home, but he didn’t own another property.
He needed somewhere to live.
And although his overall assets were around £300,000, nearly £180,000 was held in pensions.
That’s an important distinction.
Having £180,000 in pensions isn’t the same as having £180,000 sitting in a bank account ready to buy a house.
At his age, he could potentially access pension benefits, but using those funds to purchase a property could reduce the money available to support him in retirement.
He was also expecting an inheritance.
That was relevant to his financial circumstances, but it wasn’t money he’d already received. Its timing and availability needed to be considered, along with his future housing and retirement needs.
Yet ChatGPT treated the expected inheritance as a strong reason why he should receive less from the settlement.
Meanwhile, the wife’s mortgage payments and future living costs were treated as major reasons why she should receive more.
Surely both people’s housing needs, financial security and retirement plans deserved equal consideration?
That’s what concerned me about the AI’s response.
It wasn’t simply explaining the legal principles. It was confidently predicting what a judge would decide, without independently establishing the facts or properly assessing both people’s circumstances.
Does a Declaration of Trust determine what you receive in a divorce?
Another important part of this case was the Declaration of Trust signed around 20 years earlier.
It recorded that the wife owned 80% of the family home and her husband owned 20%.
ChatGPT treated this as a particularly strong argument for her retaining substantially more of the property.
But the position isn’t that simple.
A Declaration of Trust can be relevant when a couple divorces, particularly when considering their original intentions and financial contributions.
However, it doesn’t automatically determine how the property must be divided in a divorce settlement.
The Family Court has wider powers to consider both parties’ financial circumstances and needs.
And people’s circumstances can change significantly over 20 years.
They may have different incomes, different pension arrangements, health considerations or very different housing needs.
In this case, both parties were approaching retirement age, and one was facing the prospect of continuing to work rather than retiring as planned.
The Declaration of Trust was an important consideration, but it was only one part of the overall financial picture.
That’s why you can’t simply take one document, apply a general legal principle and confidently predict what a judge would decide.
How do you know if your divorce financial settlement is fair?
This is one of the most common questions people have when sorting out their divorce finances.
And unfortunately, there isn’t a simple answer.
In England and Wales, the Family Court considers a range of factors when deciding how finances should be divided on divorce.
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 sets out the matters the court must consider, including:
- Both parties’ income, earning capacity and other financial resources.
- Their current and future financial needs.
- Their ages and the length of the marriage.
- Their standard of living during the marriage.
- Their contributions to the family.
- Any relevant health considerations.
- The financial benefits they may lose as a result of divorce.
There isn’t a formula that says one person must receive 50% of everything.
Nor does having a lower income automatically mean someone should receive a larger share of the assets.
The court has to consider the circumstances as a whole, including how each person will meet their needs following the divorce.
That means looking beyond the headline figures.
Someone might have substantial pension assets but relatively little money available to buy a home.
Someone else might retain a valuable property but have limited income to cover their monthly expenses.
Both situations matter.
You can read more about the factors the court considers in Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Can ChatGPT tell you what you’re entitled to in a divorce?
ChatGPT can explain the factors a Family Court considers when deciding how finances should be divided.
What it cannot reliably do is tell you exactly what you’re entitled to or predict how a judge would decide your particular case.
That requires more than applying general legal principles to a description of your circumstances.
It requires an understanding of both parties’ finances, their needs, their earning capacity, their pensions and the options available to them.
And that’s where relying on ChatGPT becomes particularly risky.
It can produce an answer that sounds like a legal assessment without having the information needed to make one.
In our example, the AI placed considerable emphasis on the wife’s mortgage and limited income.
Those were important considerations.
But it didn’t give comparable weight to the husband’s need to find somewhere to live, his pension arrangements or the fact that he could no longer afford to retire.
And yet it was predicting, with remarkable confidence, that a judge would almost certainly reject the proposed settlement.
Is ChatGPT simply telling you what you want to hear?
This is what concerns me most.
Divorce can be emotionally difficult, particularly when you’re worried about money, your home or how you’ll manage financially in the future.
It’s natural to explain your circumstances from your own point of view.
You might tell ChatGPT that your spouse earns considerably more than you, that you’ll struggle to afford a mortgage or that you contributed more towards the family home.
Those things may all be true.
But your spouse may have equally important circumstances that you haven’t explained, or that you don’t fully understand yourself.
ChatGPT doesn’t independently investigate those facts. It doesn’t speak to your spouse, verify their financial information or establish whether your account is complete.
It responds to what you’ve told it.
And if the information is incomplete or one-sided, the analysis can be too.
The danger is that AI can take your concerns, wrap them in convincing legal language and give you the impression that a judge would agree with you.
You can end up feeling more certain about your position without necessarily being any better informed about what’s fair.
Could AI make agreeing your divorce finances harder?
I think it could.
Imagine you’re trying to reach an agreement with your husband or wife.
You’ve discussed the house, savings and pensions, and you’re getting closer to a settlement.
Then one of you asks ChatGPT whether the proposal is fair.
It produces several pages of legal analysis explaining why that person should receive more.
It even suggests that a judge would be unlikely to approve the proposed agreement.
How would that affect the negotiations?
Someone who was previously willing to compromise might now believe they’re being treated unfairly.
And if the other person asks AI the same question, but explains the situation from their own perspective, they could receive a very different assessment.
You could end up with two people, each convinced that the law supports their position.
That’s hardly going to make reaching an agreement easier.
The concern isn’t that people are asking questions about their divorce finances. They absolutely should.
The concern is treating an AI-generated opinion as independent legal advice, particularly when it makes confident predictions about what a judge would decide.
Should you use ChatGPT for divorce financial advice?
I use AI myself, and I think it can be incredibly helpful.
There’s nothing wrong with asking ChatGPT to explain what a financial consent order is, how pensions can be dealt with on divorce or what factors the Family Court considers when assessing a settlement.
It can help you understand unfamiliar terms and think of questions you might want to ask.
But we’ve also seen a growing number of people using AI to prepare their own legal documents. In a previous article, I explained why relying on ChatGPT to draft your divorce consent order can cause serious problems.
There’s also a big difference between understanding the general principles and being told what you’re personally entitled to.
ChatGPT cannot reliably tell you whether your proposed divorce settlement is fair or predict what a judge would award you.
And if it tells you that a judge would almost certainly agree with your position, I’d be very cautious about accepting that as fact.
What if you’re struggling to agree your divorce finances?
At Easy Online Divorce, we specialise in helping couples who want to sort out their finances without having to instruct two opposing solicitors.
Our Guided Financial Agreement service costs £799 and is designed for couples who need help working through their proposed financial arrangements.
We speak to both parties separately, gather information about their financial circumstances and help them understand the arrangements being proposed.
We can then help them work towards an agreement they’re both comfortable with, rather than one person simply being told what they should receive.
Where independent legal advice is needed, we’ll explain that too. Our Guided service is not a substitute for each party obtaining independent advice on their legal entitlements.
Once an agreement has been reached, we can also help prepare the appropriate financial consent order so it can be submitted to the court for approval. That is a separate service.
You don’t necessarily need an expensive, adversarial process to reach a financial agreement.
But you do need to consider the circumstances of both people, not just the arguments supporting one person’s position.
My concern with AI isn’t that people are using it to understand divorce. It’s that they’re starting to trust it to decide what’s fair, even when it doesn’t have the full picture.
And when your home, pension and financial future are involved, that’s a lot of faith to put in something that only knows what you’ve told it.
If you’re trying to agree how to split your finances and would like help working through the options, call us on 0204 530 8101 or contact Easy Online Divorce to discuss your circumstances.
James Brien is the Founder & Managing Director of Easy Online Divorce, an SRA-regulated law firm helping couples in England and Wales manage divorce and agreed financial settlements without unnecessary conflict or expense.
This article discusses general principles of divorce financial settlements and is not individual legal advice.
