The Rise in AI Driven Litigation
The introduction of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools to the public, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude, has dramatically changed the playing field for pro se litigants. Gone are the days of pro se litigants submitting their own handwritten and self-drafted versions of complaints. Instead, they have been replaced with polished legal drafts, although these often lack supporting citations. Using these tools, pro se plaintiffs simply share their (and the employer’s) personal information and purported facts and let GAI do the rest. Although GAI may promote equity in the legal space by lowering the barrier to entry for pro se litigants, who may not otherwise be able to afford employment attorneys, employers and the firms defending them are bearing the brunt of the negative side effects, including inflated settlement demands, extensive motion practice, and lengthier case lifecycles.
The Numbers
Employers and courts all over the country have experienced a steady increase in pro se litigants. Many legal experts believe that GAI is partially responsible for this boom in unrepresented litigants. Between 2021 and 2025, the Lex Machina 2026 Employment Litigation Report reflected a nearly two-fold increase in the number of pro se employment case filings, from 2,052 to 4,388. Some large employment law firms, conducting their own statistical analysis, identified somewhere between a 40-50% increase in pro se employment litigation.
Defending pro se cases which use GAI is expected to cost about 10-15% more than a traditional lawyer-brought case. This is largely because AI dramatically lengthens the discovery period, as pro se litigants may be more likely to engage in frivolous motion practice. One firm reported that a pro se plaintiff filed as many as 29 separate motions in a single case. Similarly, pro se litigants are rarely familiar with the rules of discovery, leading to extensive (and expensive) discovery phases. That same pro se litigant filed as many as 236 interrogatories, 144 requests for admission, and 38 requests for production. While such conduct can be addressed by a Motion for a Protective Order, ultimately the defense still bears the cost of the motion practice needed to manage the resulting volume of filings.
Courts Tackling the Issue of AI Use
This rise in AI-assisted pro se litigation presents additional challenges. GAI tools can produce inaccurate legal information, misstate procedural requirements, and hallucinate or fabricate case law. Courts have encountered numerous filings containing fictitious cases. In response, courts and administrative agencies across the country are developing their own approaches to address this issue.
For example, some practitioners have reported that the Texas Workforce Commission, Texas’ equivalent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, no longer permits pro se parties to use AI during the mediation process. Although that decision came only after AI convinced claimants that their damages were in the millions of dollars, it nevertheless represents a step in the right direction. Similarly, district courts in Texas now have at least one judge with a standing order requiring the filer to verify if any materials were prepared with the assistance of AI. Interestingly, the Northern District of Texas’ Local Rule 7.2(f) requires all briefs prepared with AI to place this disclosure on the first page.
Judges everywhere are attempting to combat the ongoing problem of AI use in filings. These efforts have taken several routes: some judges are lenient; some are more pragmatic; and some, restrictive in their approach to maintaining AI-free courts.
Although cautious in their approach, there are a few districts that are ultimately embracing the new reality of AI in the legal process. In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Michael Baylson permits AI usage on the condition that any complaint, answer, motion, brief or other court-filed document contains a clear and plain factual statement disclosing AI usage and a certification that “each and every citation to the law, or the record in the paper, has been verified as accurate.” Similarly, Judge Steven Jones and Judge Tiffany Johnson in the Northern District of Georgia have issued standing orders requiring all counsel and pro se parties to disclose the use of AI in any capacity to prepare documents.
Some districts, seeking to preserve what was once the norm of an AI-free legal process, have approached AI with strict guidelines for research exclusively. For example, in the Western District of North Carolina, all seven district court judges have signed a standing order that prohibits the use of AI for legal research. All filers, attorneys and pro se litigants must certify that any briefs or memorandums filed with the court do not use AI for legal research and that every citation was checked for accuracy.
Within the past month, the Florida Supreme Court amended the Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) to require the signer of a filing to represent that the legal authorities identified in that filing “exist and are accurately cited.” The Court Commentary to the 2026 Amendments states the amendments were adopted to “create a statewide, uniform replacement for varied circuit court administrative orders imposing disclosure and certification requirements about the use of artificial intelligence in filing.” In the Order amending the Rule, the Supreme Court stated that this representation requirement applies both to filings prepared by attorneys and those prepared by unrepresented parties. The court warned that violations may lead to sanctions including, but not limited to, “reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorney’s fees, or other sanctions.”
Some courts are taking a more prohibitive approach. Whereas some districts reject AI only in specific circumstances, others ban it entirely and enforce zero-tolerance policies for violations. For example, Judge Christopher Boyko, within the Northern District of Ohio, prohibits the use of AI in court filings.
Regardless of the approach and how their methods may differ, the goals are the same: to promote truthful, high-quality, and accurate legal filings.