Jessica Susan Hill Law

18/10/2026

17/10/2026

Do you really need to pay for expensive legal technology to represent yourself in the Family Court?

Not necessarily.

I've published a new JSH Law guide comparing 23 named tools and services — from CourtNav, Advicenow and official court services to ChatGPT, evidence spreadsheets, PDF editors and co-parenting apps.

It includes current subscription examples, free alternatives, four practical toolkits and important warnings about confidential Family Court papers and domestic abuse.

A paid subscription doesn't make a document court-compliant. The right tool is the one that solves the problem your case actually presents.

Read the guide:
https://jshlaw.co.uk/tools-templates-research-cases/ai-legal-process/legal-tech-tools-worth-paying-for-litigants-in-person-2026/

Which legal tech tools genuinely help litigants in person? JSH Law compares 23 free and paid options, co-parenting app costs, AI tools, PDF software, evidence management and Family Court safeguards.

17/10/2026

Microsoft has launched Copilot for Legal — and there is a bigger story behind the announcement.

Mike Murphy highlighted the advantage Microsoft has from being the software platform many lawyers already use. One day after the launch, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority announced a proposed designation concerning Microsoft's wider business software ecosystem.

For JSH Law, this is about more than technology or market share. In the Family Court, an AI system must not mistake allegations for findings, lose important safeguarding context or expose confidential children's records.

Can legal AI make legal work more accurate and justice genuinely more accessible?

Read our new analysis, with credit to Mike Murphy:
https://jshlaw.co.uk/tools-templates-research-cases/ai-legal-process/microsoft-copilot-for-legal-ai-market-family-justice/

Microsoft has launched Copilot for Legal. JSH Law examines Mike Murphy’s insight, the UK CMA’s concerns, professional duties and the implications for family justice.

16/10/2026

Worried that your custom GPT might disappear?

OpenAI has announced that custom GPTs are scheduled to retire on 11 December 2026. That does NOT mean ChatGPT itself is shutting down.

If you use a GPT to help organise court documents, prepare a chronology, draft correspondence or understand a legal process, there is time to prepare.

OpenAI says existing custom GPT conversations will remain accessible. But the move to plugins brings some changes, particularly if you rely on a GPT created by somebody else.

My new JSH Law guide explains:
• What is changing and what isn't
• What happens to conversations and reference files
• Whether ChatGPT Projects are affected
• What creators and users should do
• How to protect court records, confidential information and deadlines

You don't need to panic. Just don't let any one AI tool become the only place your case exists.

Read the full plain-English guide:
https://jshlaw.co.uk/tools-templates-research-cases/ai-legal-process/custom-gpt-retirement-legal-professionals/

OpenAI is retiring custom GPTs in December 2026. What does this mean for law firms, sole practitioners and litigants in person? Practical migration advice.

15/10/2026

AI can now do more than draft a document. It can take action.

But if an AI agent invents a legal authority, alters a witness's account or shares confidential material, who answers for the consequences?

English law has long dealt with authority, responsibility and the reliability of evidence. New AI systems make those questions more urgent, not less.

My latest JSH Law article examines:
• The SRA's duties on AI-assisted legal work
• Recent court decisions involving inaccurate AI-generated material
• Confidentiality, privilege and data protection
• Automated decisions and legal costs
• The limits of delegating responsibility to technology

The underlying principle is simple: technology can assist professional judgement. It cannot make accountability disappear.

Read the full legal analysis:
https://jshlaw.co.uk/tools-templates-research-cases/ai-legal-process/ai-agents-legal-liability-uk-2026/

Explore AI liability in UK legal practice, including SRA duties, false authorities, witness evidence, data protection and professional responsibility.

14/10/2026

DIAGNOSED AS A NARCISSIST BY AN UNREGULATED PSYCHOLOGIST. ACCUSED OF PARENTAL ALIENATION.

Sarah attended an urgent court hearing via video call. It lasted 50 minutes. On the basis of the unregulated psychologist’s evidence, the judge told her that her daughters would have to live with their father and that she had two hours to get them ready to leave.

Gill was an unregulated psychologist whom the judge, at one point, mistakenly referred to as “Dr”, despite her not holding a doctorate.

Gill concluded that Sarah had alienated her daughters from their father and recommended that they be transferred into his care.

When their father arrived, the children refused to go with him.

“The girls were clinging to me and had to be dragged off kicking and screaming. All the neighbours came out to see what was happening.”

They were six and nine years old.

What happened next would separate a mother from her daughters for years.

Fighting this has cost her £85,000 in legal bills. Her share of the cost of supervised contact with her daughters has reached £13,000. She is close to bankruptcy.

And still she is asking how one unregulated court expert, using a theory that official guidance in England and Wales now describes as “harmful pseudo-science”, could wield so much power over her life.

This is Sarah’s story.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/sep/29/mother-feels-betrayed-family-courts-parental-alienation-england-wales?

ORACLE SOCIAL WORK

Supporting parents involved with Children’s Services

Assessment Reviews • Advocacy Support • Case Consultations • Assessment Preparation

Truly independent. We only work for families.

www.oraclesocialwork.co.uk

13/10/2026

Can WhatsApp messages be used as evidence in Family Court? Yes — but there's a difference between preserving evidence and putting it in front of a judge.

The Family Court's 2026 bundle rules specifically address WhatsApp messages, texts, emails and social media communications. Under Practice Direction 27A, these should not be included in a hearing bundle unless the court directs otherwise.

That doesn't mean relevant messages are automatically inadmissible.

If you're representing yourself, the practical questions are:
• Have you preserved the original conversation?
• Can you show the date, sender and context?
• Which disputed issue does each extract address?
• Have you checked the court's directions before including it?

I've published a new JSH Law guide explaining screenshots, authenticity, coercive control, child arrangements, safeguarding and safe AI-assisted evidence organisation.

Read the full guide: https://jshlaw.co.uk/family-court-procedure-uk/whatsapp-evidence-family-court-2026/