多伦多家庭律师 Steven Benmor 最近按客户要求起草了一份婚前协议。随后，客户给他发来一份长达 13 点的修改清单，篇幅几乎与婚前协议本身相当。
Steven Benmor, a Toronto family lawyer, recently drafted a prenuptial agreement the way he said his client asked. Then the client emailed him a 13-part list of revisions nearly as long as the prenup.
Benmor 表示，其中一些修改深入到了极其细枝末节的程度，根本不可能是人类想出来的。他清楚客户求助了人工智能聊天机器人，也明白要花时间解释聊天机器人哪里错了，就得向客户额外收费。
Some revisions went so deep into the weeds, Benmor said, that no human could have come up with them. Benmor knew his client had turned to an artificial intelligence chatbot. And he knew that taking the time to explain why the chatbot was mistaken would require charging his client extra.
他的信条是：“别花冤枉钱，让人类专家去跟机器人专家辩论。”这并非 Benmor 首次遇到此类情况。家庭律师处理的业务涵盖婚前协议、离婚、抚养权争夺等，他们表示，如今许多客户拿着厚厚一叠法律建议上门，看起来极像是 ChatGPT 或其他聊天机器人生成的。
His mantra: “Don’t spend money unduly by asking a human expert to enter into a debate with a robot expert.”It was hardly the first time this had happened to Benmor. Family lawyers, who handle everything from prenups to divorces and custody fights, say many of their clients are now showing up with pages of legal advice that look like the result of ChatGPT or other chatbots.
全国性家庭法律律所 Cordell & Cordell 今年春天对 133 名律师进行的一项调查显示，80% 的受访者表示，客户曾发送过他们相信是借助 AI 生成的信函、起草诉状或策略建议。
In a spring survey of 133 lawyers at Cordell & Cordell, a national family-law firm, 80% said clients had sent them correspondence, draft pleadings or strategy suggestions they believed were generated with AI.
如今人们什么都爱问聊天机器人，包括理财建议和医疗诊断。但律师们说，家庭法领域并非聊天机器人的强项。把家庭纠纷的单方陈述喂给聊天机器人，你可能会得到想看到的法律答案，可那未必是法官会采信的答案。
People ask chatbots for everything these days, including financial advice and medical diagnoses. But family law isn’t a place where they shine, lawyers say. Feed one side of a family fight into a chatbot and you might get the legal answer you want to see, even if it isn’t one that will necessarily fly with the judge.
离婚双方仍纷纷求助于聊天机器人。婚姻破裂时，当事人往往资金紧张，聘请律师又耗时。聊天机器人能即时回应，甚至在半夜也能回答。
Divorcing partners turn to them anyway. Money is often tight for people when a marriage comes apart, and hiring a lawyer takes time. A chatbot answers right away, even in the middle of the night.
Logan Burns 使用 ChatGPT 寻求法律建议，结果不得不向法官道歉。Burns 是一名 35 岁的牧师兼屋顶销售员，居住在佐治亚州拉格朗日。去年婚姻破裂时，他曾支付一名佐治亚州律师 2500 美元的预付费用。这对夫妇随后撤销了离婚诉讼并试图复合，妻子带着孩子去蒙大拿州投奔亲戚。复合失败后，抚养权争夺战转移到了那里，当地一名律师要价 7000 美元。Burns 选择每月支付 19.99 美元使用聊天机器人。“它在干律师的活，至少也是个法律助理的活，”他说。
Logan Burns used ChatGPT for legal advice and ended up having to apologize to the judge. Burns, a 35-year-old pastor and roofing salesman in LaGrange, Ga., paid a Georgia lawyer a $2,500 retainer when his marriage came apart last year. The couple called off the divorce and tried to reconcile, and his wife took the children to stay with family in Montana. When the reconciliation failed, the custody fight landed there, where a lawyer wanted $7,000. He paid $19.99 a month for the chatbot instead. “It was doing the job of a lawyer, or at least a paralegal,” he said.
ChatGPT 指引他关注一条规则：一般情况下，孩子在某州居住满六个月后，该州即拥有抚养权裁决管辖权。他的孩子在蒙大拿州居住的时间不足六个月。Burns 希望案件移回佐治亚州审理。
ChatGPT pointed him to a rule that generally lets a state decide custody once a child has lived there for six months. His children had been in Montana for less than that. Burns wanted the case moved to Georgia.
于是他给法官写了一封信，主张法院不当接管了孩子的案件。法官在庭审中提到了这封信。“您在技术上没有管辖权，”Burns 回忆自己曾对法官这样说。法官严厉地告诉他，情况并非如此。该规则有例外：法院在紧急情况下可以介入，而 Burns 自己曾提交过紧急申请。
So he wrote the judge a letter arguing that the court had improperly taken over his children’s case. The judge brought it up in court. “You technically don’t have jurisdiction,” Burns recalled telling the judge. The judge sternly told him that wasn’t how it worked. The rule has exceptions: Courts can step in during emergencies, and Burns had filed an emergency request himself.
“法官大人，我不是在指控您什么，”他回忆自己曾这样说。“ChatGPT 给了我基础信息，但它不会给你法律解释。”他目前暂时获得了孩子的抚养权，但案件仍在审理中。“谢谢，AI，”Burns 说。
“Your Honor, I’m not accusing you of anything,” he recalled saying. “ChatGPT gave me the baseline information. But it doesn’t give you the interpretation of law.”He has temporary custody of his children, though the case is ongoing. “Thank you, AI,” Burns said.
加州大学旧金山法学院兼职教授 Damien Charlotin 专门追踪法庭案件中 AI 生成的错误，他统计出 148 起家事法庭判决中，法官指出了虚假引用或其他疑似 AI 错误。其中 100 多起发生在今年。
Damien Charlotin, an adjunct professor at UC Law San Francisco who tracks AI-generated errors in court cases, has counted 148 family-law rulings in which judges flagged fake citations or other apparent AI mistakes. More than 100 came this year.
聊天机器人也倾向于轻信一方的说法，尽管在家事法领域，双方往往对事实存在分歧。一家在线健康公司的所有者在离婚协议中同意支付高额赡养费，依据是该企业的盈利情况。数年后，他从企业中提取的资金大幅减少，便向聊天机器人咨询法官是否会减少其赡养费支付。机器人告诉他，他极有可能胜诉。
Chatbots also tend to take one side’s word at face value, even though two sides often disagree on facts in family law. The owner of an online wellness company had agreed in his divorce to pay hefty spousal support, based on what the business was earning. Years later, taking far less money out of the business, he asked a chatbot whether a judge would cut his payments. The bot told him he had an easy win.
该聊天机器人从未要求查看他的财务报表或支出情况，而他的支出并未随收入减少而缩减。洛杉矶家事律师霍辛·贝伦吉（Hossein Berenji）表示，该机器人“单纯接受了我们客户关于其财务状况的叙述”，贝伦吉所在的律师事务所后来接手了此案。
The chatbot never asked to see his financial statements, or his spending, which hadn’t shrunk with his income. It “simply accepted our client’s narrative regarding his finances,” said Hossein Berenji, a Los Angeles family lawyer whose firm later took the case.
依据聊天机器人的建议，他聘请了一名律师，并说服该律师遵循聊天机器人的策略。2024年底，该律师向法院申请减少赡养费，并附上了部分公司记录。对方律师利用这些相同记录主张他的收入并未真正下降，约一年后法官采纳了这一观点。该男子怪罪自己的律师，而非聊天机器人，并转而委托贝伦吉的律所。“我们花了一段时间才说服他摆脱 AI 给他的建议，”贝伦吉说。
Relying on the chatbot’s advice, he hired a lawyer and persuaded the attorney to follow the chatbot’s strategy. In late 2024, the lawyer asked the court to reduce the support, attaching some company records. The other side’s lawyer used those same records to argue his income hadn’t really fallen, and about a year later the judge agreed. The man blamed his lawyer, not the chatbot, and switched to Berenji’s firm. “It took us a while to convince him to move away from what AI was advising him to do,” Berenji said.
该律所引入了一名司法会计师，发现首次申请遗漏的内容：贝伦吉表示，企业在继续支付运营开销期间，大量产品已变质报废。销售额很大，但留给客户的净收入却很少。
The firm brought in a forensic accountant, who found what the first filing had left out: A lot of the company’s products had spoiled while the business was still paying its overhead, Berenji said. Sales were big. What was left for his client wasn’t.
在最近一次听证会上，法官初步认定其财务状况已发生变化，暂时中止了其赡养费支付。
At a recent hearing, a judge tentatively agreed his finances had changed and put his support payments on hold for now.
聊天机器人所谓的“轻松胜诉”，耗时近两年、更换了两家律所才得以实现。
What the chatbot called an easy win took two law firms and nearly two years.
贝伦吉表示，该男子支付给第一任律师的所有费用“基本上打了水漂”，且在此期间他极有可能多付了赡养费。
Everything the man paid his first lawyer was “basically money thrown down the drain,” and he likely overpaid spousal support the whole time, Berenji said.
Maha Kamal 是丹佛的一名家庭律师，她在一起抚养权案件中代表一位母亲加入诉讼，因为孩子的父亲开始向法院递交大量文件，指控她违反法官的命令。法官会驳回一份，又会收到另一份。该父亲大多是自行代表自己。
Maha Kamal, a Denver family lawyer, joined a custody case on behalf of a mother after the children’s father began peppering the court with filings that accused her of breaking the judge’s orders. The judge would reject one, and another would arrive. The father was mostly representing himself.
Kamal 说，这些文件似乎是由人工智能撰写的。“这让我的当事人感到害怕。”她没有逐一回应，而是请求法官召集双方父母到庭。到那时，已经有九份文件。她指出其中一份引用了一个并不存在的法律原则。Kamal 说，法官警告该父亲，如果再出现类似情况，可能会被判令支付母亲的律师费等处罚。
The filings appeared to be written by AI, Kamal said. “It was scaring my client.”Instead of answering them one by one, Kamal asked the judge to call both parents in. By then, there were nine filings. She pointed out that one cited a legal principle that didn’t exist. The judge warned the father that if it happened again, he could be ordered to pay the mother’s legal fees, among other penalties, Kamal said.
该父亲否认使用人工智能。他还辩称，没有任何规定禁止使用人工智能，Kamal 说。
He denied using AI. He also argued that nothing prohibited it, she said.
他仍然继续递交文件。法官不断驳回，并表示在最终听证会之前，法院不会再考虑更多文件。最终，双方父母达成和解。Kamal 说：“这可能被用作一种诉讼滥用的手段。”不仅是律师失去耐心，法官也同样如此。
He kept filing anyway. The judge kept turning him down and said the court wouldn’t consider more filings before the final hearing. The parents eventually settled. “It could be used as a form of litigation abuse,” Kamal said. It isn’t just the lawyers losing patience.
一名在佛罗里达自行代表自己的离婚丈夫使用人工智能，至少递交了145份动议，并向上诉法院提交了45页由人工智能生成的文件以及一份863页的附录，解释他的立场，法院记录显示。
Judges are as well. A Florida husband representing himself in his divorce, who used AI, filed at least 145 motions, then sent an appeals court 45 AI-generated pages and an 863-page appendix explaining himself, according to court records.
今年5月，法院下令其书记官拒绝该丈夫今后提交的文件，除非有律师签名。
In May, the court ordered its clerk to reject his future filings unless a lawyer signs them.