How do self-represented litigants use AI tools in court?

A Growing Population Navigating Courts Alone

A substantial number of people appear in civil court — in eviction cases, family law matters, small claims, and debt collection — without an attorney, often because they can’t afford one. These self-represented, or “pro se,” litigants have historically relied on court self-help centers, legal aid clinics, and printed instructions to navigate an unfamiliar system. AI tools have become a new resource in that mix, offering a way to get quick answers outside of office hours and without needing an appointment.

Common Ways AI Tools Get Used

Self-represented litigants commonly turn to AI chatbots to understand basic legal terminology and procedural steps — for example, what happens after an eviction complaint is filed, or what documents are typically needed for a small claims hearing. Beyond general orientation, many also use AI tools to help draft or organize documents, such as a written answer to a complaint or a summary of key facts to bring to a hearing. Some use AI to prepare questions they anticipate a judge might ask, or to organize their own points in a logical order for presentation.

Separately, a number of courts and legal aid organizations have built or piloted their own AI-assisted self-help tools, designed specifically to walk litigants through court-specific forms and procedures, often with tighter guardrails and more current local information than a general-purpose chatbot would have.

How Courts Are Responding to AI-Assisted Filings

As AI use among self-represented litigants (and, at times, attorneys) has grown, some courts have encountered filings containing errors introduced by AI tools, including incorrect procedural claims or fabricated case citations. This has prompted a number of courts to consider or adopt local rules addressing AI-assisted filings — in some cases requiring a certification that any cited authority was independently verified, or a disclosure that AI tools were used in preparing the document. These requirements are not uniform, and self-represented litigants should check the specific rules of the court where they’re filing.

Importantly, regardless of how a document was drafted, the litigant who signs and files it generally remains fully responsible for its accuracy and content — using an AI tool doesn’t shift that responsibility, and courts have treated litigants’ own filings the same way whether AI was involved or not.

Practical Considerations for Litigants

Given these dynamics, self-represented litigants using AI tools are generally best served by treating AI output as a helpful starting point rather than a finished product — verifying any factual or legal claims, checking the court’s current forms and local rules, and, where available, having a self-help center or legal aid clinic review a document before it’s filed. Many courts maintain self-help centers specifically staffed to assist pro se litigants with exactly this kind of review.

Bottom Line

Self-represented litigants are increasingly using AI tools to understand procedures, draft documents, and prepare for hearings, and this can meaningfully help level the playing field — but courts increasingly expect disclosure or verification of AI-assisted content, and the litigant remains fully responsible for what’s ultimately filed.

Go deeper

• How do courts currently handle ai generated evidence in legal proceedings?