AI tools are driving a surge in pro se litigation in US courts but judges are sanctioning self-represented litigants for AI-generated errors and hallucinations

Artificial intelligence tools are being credited with a marked increase in pro se litigation, where individuals represent themselves in court without a lawyer, but US federal and state court judges are raising significant alarms about the quality of AI-generated legal filings. Reporting by Law.com, drawing on new data and expert commentary, finds that while AI has lowered the practical barrier to filing a claim, it has not improved success rates for unrepresented litigants. Judges have issued standing orders in both federal and state courts addressing AI use by pro se (self-represented) litigants, and some have sanctioned individuals over filings that contained hallucinated case citations, false legal propositions, or procedurally defective arguments generated by AI tools without adequate human review. Courts are applying the same procedural rules to pro se litigants using AI as they apply to qualified lawyers, meaning errors carry real consequences including dismissal of claims and cost sanctions. The Baylor Law Family Law Clinic is among the institutions working with pro se litigants to help them use AI tools effectively, particularly in emotionally complex matters such as child custody proceedings where AI cannot account for the personal circumstances that matter to a judge. Legal experts quoted by Law.com note that AI tools do not adequately capture the emotional and contextual dimensions of family or civil disputes, even where they can generate technically structured documents. The data dimension of the story is important: new figures suggest that the volume increase in pro se filings driven by AI has not translated into better outcomes for unrepresented parties, suggesting that the access-to-justice argument for AI-assisted litigation requires more careful examination.