Is AI Flooding the Courts with Frivolous Pro Se Lawsuits or Fixing Access to Justice?

A paradox is emerging in the American legal system. Artificial intelligence tools are simultaneously democratizing access to justice and threatening to overwhelm courts with an unprecedented volume of litigation. Early anecdotal rumblings from family law circles suggest judges and clerks are already seeing self-represented litigants filing more motions, more often, with better formatting and greater confidence.[1] The question is not whether AI will transform pro se litigation, but whether the justice system can evolve fast enough to absorb the coming wave.

The Coming Wave: How AI Arms the Self-Represented Litigant

For the first time in legal history, a motivated individual with no legal training can draft pleadings, affidavits, and motions that approach the quality of professionally prepared documents. Generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and specialized AI legal software such as AI.Law now provide self-represented litigants with capabilities that were unimaginable just a few years ago.[2][3]

These tools can draft court documents with passable accuracy and structure, provide step-by-step procedural guidance through the litigation process, and suggest aggressive or repetitive litigation strategies including multiple motions, discovery requests, and appeals. For a motivated self-represented party, AI functions as a 24/7 paralegal, available at any hour without billing.

Some self-represented parties have described AI as helping them understand and control their own cases for the first time. Commercial platforms have emerged to capitalize on this demand, offering AI-driven document generation for people who cannot afford or choose not to hire lawyers.[4]

Why This Matters: The Floodgate Effect

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) recently reported a sharp rise in contract case filings across 28 states, including a 21% increase in 2022 and 15% in 2023.[1] While the NCSC did not attribute this trend directly to AI, it noted that the growing accessibility of generative tools could be a contributing factor.

The potential for exponential growth exists across three dimensions. First, volume: easier access means more people file who otherwise would not have attempted litigation.

Second, persistence: AI enables repeat filings and motions without the fatigue or cost that typically discourages continued litigation.

Third, noise: courts and clerks must sift through higher volumes of procedurally correct but potentially weak paperwork.

The barrier to entry for litigation has effectively collapsed. Where previously a person needed either substantial wealth to hire counsel or exceptional determination to proceed pro se, now anyone with internet access can generate filings that appear professional and legally coherent.

The Accountability Gap: Lawyers Take a Beating While Self-Reps Don’t

The asymmetry between represented parties and pro se litigants creates a perfect storm for AI-enabled litigation. Attorneys face serious consequences for AI mistakes, including sanctions, reputational harm, and bar discipline. The best-known example is Mata v. Avianca, where two attorneys were sanctioned by the Southern District of New York after submitting a brief containing AI-generated fictitious citations.[5][6] The court imposed a $5,000 fine and publicly admonished them.

Pro se litigants, by contrast, face far fewer consequences. Courts have so far shown reluctance to impose severe penalties on unrepresented parties who submit AI-generated filings with inaccurate citations. In most cases, the filings are dismissed or the litigant is warned to correct the record.[7][8] The lack of meaningful deterrence means a self-represented party can file multiple motions, discovery requests, and appeals with minimal risk beyond dismissal. The opposing party, however, must respond to each filing or risk default or waiver of defenses.

The Discovery Problem: Where the Real Burden Falls

While the initial complaint garners attention, the true burden of AI-assisted pro se litigation may emerge during discovery. Discovery, the pre-trial process of exchanging information, is often the most expensive phase of civil litigation and can account for a large portion of total costs.[9] AI tools can help self-represented litigants generate boilerplate discovery demands that are technically proper but practically burdensome. A single litigant can now easily draft dozens of interrogatories and document requests that require costly attorney time to answer.

Responding to discovery is expensive even when claims lack merit. The American Rule requires each party to bear its own litigation costs, meaning defendants absorb expenses regardless of outcome. For small businesses and individuals, these costs often exceed potential judgments, creating pressure to settle rather than fight.

The Small Business and Individual Defendant Dilemma

When an AI-assisted pro se plaintiff files suit, the financial pressures on defendants multiply. Filing an answer or motion to dismiss often requires hiring counsel. Discovery compliance can involve expensive e-discovery vendors. Each AI-generated motion demands a response. Employees must gather documents and consult with counsel rather than focus on operations. The result is predictable: many defendants settle even weak claims to avoid mounting costs.

Unlike in countries that follow “loser pays” rules, U.S. courts rarely award attorney fees to prevailing defendants unless the case is frivolous or brought in bad faith. Even then, collecting from judgment-proof plaintiffs is difficult. Without reform, AI could magnify these asymmetries.

The Revision and Amendment Cycle

AI also makes it easier for litigants to revise and refile after dismissal. A person who once would have struggled to interpret a court’s order can now feed the ruling into an AI tool and receive step-by-step instructions for amending the complaint. This can create a loop of successive filings that prolongs litigation and increases costs for all parties. Courts can label habitual offenders as vexatious litigants, but such orders require repeated abuse over time. Within a single case, most procedural rules still permit amendments when “justice requires.”

The Access-to-Justice Argument

The other side of this debate cannot be ignored. For millions of Americans, AI represents the first realistic opportunity to participate meaningfully in the legal system. Most people cannot afford legal representation for civil disputes, family law matters, or administrative appeals. Attorney fees for even straightforward litigation can reach tens of thousands of dollars. Legal aid organizations serve only a fraction of those who qualify.

AI gives these individuals a fighting chance. A person facing eviction, seeking child-support enforcement, or defending a debt claim can now produce filings that courts will consider seriously. At New York University’s eviction-defense program, for example, researchers are exploring AI-driven tools to automate initial responses for tenants seeking help navigating housing court.[10] Similar pilots across the country suggest that generative AI could expand access to self-help resources that have long been underfunded.

The Systemic Dilemma: Fairness vs. Function

Courts face an impossible tension. They want to promote fairness and participation while maintaining order and efficiency in already strained systems. The ripple effects of increased AI-assisted filings could be substantial. Courts may experience growing backlogs as staff spend more time reviewing filings to assess merit. Defendants may settle frivolous cases to avoid costs. At what point does access to justice become abuse of justice? That question sits at the heart of how courts will respond to AI-empowered pro se litigation.

How Courts Might Respond

Cost awards and fee shifting. Courts could apply existing sanctions statutes more aggressively to discourage frivolous lawsuits, although enforcement is difficult when litigants lack resources.[11][12]

Pre-filing reviews. Some courts already restrict repeat filers by requiring permission to file new actions. Expanding these systems could help, though they raise concerns about fairness and administrative burden.

AI disclosure rules. Several courts have issued standing orders requiring lawyers to disclose AI use in filings, such as the Northern District of Texas and Eastern District of Pennsylvania.[13] North Carolina has proposed statewide legislation requiring disclosure in court submissions.[14] These measures promote transparency but do little to reduce filing volume.

AI-powered triage. Courts themselves could use AI to manage volume, screening filings for jurisdictional defects or categorizing similar cases for batch handling. The NCSC has encouraged pilot programs to explore this possibility.[1]

The Legal Profession’s Paradox: More Work or Less?

The impact on lawyers is uncertain. In the short term, AI-driven filings could create more work as defense counsel respond to an influx of motions and complaints. In the long run, individuals who would have hired counsel for routine matters may rely on AI instead.

The result could be a bifurcated market where AI handles routine filings while lawyers focus on complex or high-stakes cases. The profession may need to redefine its value around judgment, ethics, and strategy rather than document production.

The Paradoxical Outcome: AI as Both Problem and Solution

The same technology threatening to overwhelm courts could also streamline them. AI tools can help clerks process filings faster, assist judges in summarizing arguments, and help legal aid organizations serve more clients. Michigan’s MI-Resolve platform already uses automation for online dispute resolution.[15] New York state offers more than 20 do-it-yourself form programs for common cases, and generative AI could enhance these by helping litigants complete narrative sections.[15] In the long run, AI may help courts pre-screen weak cases or route disputes to mediation before they become full-blown lawsuits.

Conclusion: The Litigation Singularity

AI will both flood the courts and expand access. The democratization of legal document drafting is irreversible. The question is not whether AI will empower pro se litigants, but whether the justice system can adapt without sacrificing fairness or function. Self-represented litigants are filing more sophisticated motions.

Courts are warning about AI-generated fake citations while avoiding harsh sanctions for unrepresented parties.[5][7][8] The accountability gap persists, creating asymmetric risks that favor those with the least to lose. Yet the access-to-justice imperative cannot be ignored. Millions face legal problems they cannot afford to address. AI gives them a tool, imperfect but transformative, to participate in a system that has long excluded them.

AI will not make everyone a good lawyer, but it might make everyone a litigant. Whether that represents progress or peril depends entirely on how courts, lawmakers, and the legal profession respond.

My Take

I’ll pull out my crystal ball and speculate that AI will prove to be the greatest advancement for access to justice in history. While it may result in an uptick in frivolous lawsuits, that pales in comparison to the opportunity for millions of people around the world who cannot afford counsel to have their day in court.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.

References

1. National Center for State Courts. (2025). Is GenAI revolutionizing court filings? Available at: https://www.ncsc.org/resources-courts/genai-revolutionizing-court-filings
2. Bent, S.M. (2025). How AI Is Leveling the Legal Playing Field for Pro Se Litigants. Medium. https://medium.com/@staceybent/how-ai-is-leveling-the-legal-playing-field-for-pro-se-litigants-c35708be93cf
3. AI.Law. (2024). AI.Law Introduces AI-Driven Legal Tool to Aid Pro Se Litigants in Drafting Lawsuits. https://www.kron4.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/770989488/ai-law-introduces-ai-driven-legal-tool-to-aid-pro-se-litigants-in-drafting-lawsuits/
4. Poggio, M. (2024). Gen AI Shows Promise and Peril for Pro Se Litigants. Law360. https://www.law360.com/articles/1812918/gen-ai-shows-promise-and-peril-for-pro-se-litigants
5. American Bar Association. (2024). Common Issues That Arise in AI Sanction Jurisprudence. Business Law Today. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-september/common-issues-arise-ai-sanction-jurisprudence/
6. Justia. (2023). Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 1:22-cv-01461 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2022cv01461/575368/54/
7. ABA Journal. (2024). Confronted with AI hallucinations in filings, one court shows ‘justifiable kindness,’ while another gets tough. https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/court-rejects-monetary-sanctions-for-ai-generated-fake-cases-citing-lawyers-tragic-personal-circumstances
8. WSHB Law. (2024). Court Cautions AI-Generated Legal Filings May Face Consequences. https://www.wshblaw.com/publication-court-cautions-ai-generated-legal-filings-may-face-consequences
9. Swaner, A. (2024). AI In The Hands of Pro Se Litigants. AI for Lawyers Substack. https://aiforlawyers.substack.com/p/ai-in-the-hands-of-pro-se-litigants
10. Martinson, S. (2024). How Courts Can Use Generative AI To Help Pro Se Litigants. Law360. https://www.law360.com/articles/1833092/how-courts-can-use-generative-ai-to-help-pro-se-litigants
11. Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC. (2024). Fighting Back Against Frivolous Lawsuits and Meritless Claims. https://ansell.law/fighting-back-against-frivolous-lawsuits-and-meritless-claims/
12. American Bar Association. (2023). Making Litigants (and Their Attorneys) Pay for Frivolous Cases or Arguments. Litigation News. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/mass-torts/making-litigants-and-their-attorneys-pay-frivolous-cases-or-arguments/
13. Eve Legal. (2024). What You Need to Know: AI Disclosure Rules in Legal Filings. https://www.eve.legal/blogs/what-you-need-to-know-ai-disclosure-rules-in-legal-filings
14. North Carolina General Assembly. (2024). Proposed Legislation on Artificial Intelligence in Legal Filings. https://www.ncleg.gov
15. Law360. (2024). How Courts Can Use Generative AI To Help Pro Se Litigants. https://www.law360.com/articles/1833092/how-courts-can-use-generative-ai-to-help-pro-se-litigants