Overview of How AI is clogging the courtroom
This NPR Indicator episode examines how generative AI is changing the legal system by making it easier for people to file lawsuits without lawyers. While AI can improve access to justice for people who can’t afford counsel, it is also increasing the volume of pro se filings, adding to court backlogs, and sometimes leading to badly prepared cases, sanctions, and other penalties.
Main Takeaways
-
AI is lowering the barrier to filing lawsuits
- People who would otherwise struggle to draft pleadings, organize documents, or understand procedures can now use chatbots and other tools to help them.
- This is especially useful for people facing housing, foreclosure, small-claims, and family-law issues.
-
The number of pro se cases appears to be rising
- Researchers Joshua Levy and Anand Shah analyzed federal court data and found a noticeable jump in pro se filings beginning around 2023, roughly when ChatGPT became widely available.
- They also found more filings in case types they describe as “templatable”—cases that are relatively straightforward and can be guided by standard forms or prompts.
-
AI is creating more work for already strained courts
- More pro se filings means more documents, more procedural mistakes, and more time for clerks and judges to sort through cases.
- Court systems already face backlogs, and AI is making that workload worse without increasing court capacity.
-
AI is not making pro se litigants significantly more successful
- Despite easier access, pro se litigants are still rarely winning against governments or companies.
- Filing a case is only the first step; presenting evidence and arguing effectively in court is still very difficult.
-
Bad AI use can backfire badly
- Some litigants have submitted AI-generated legal arguments or fake citations and been hit with major sanctions.
- One example mentioned involved a pro se litigant ordered to pay over $60,000 in fees after citing bogus AI-generated cases.
The Debate: Access to Justice vs. Courtroom Clutter
The case for AI in law
- Legal aid resources are scarce, and many people with legitimate claims cannot find an attorney.
- AI can help with early-stage legal tasks, like:
- drafting demand letters
- figuring out what to do when a landlord won’t respond
- identifying basic next steps in a housing dispute
- Satish Nori argues that the justice system should be easier to access, even if that means more filings.
The case against it
- Courts are not equipped to absorb a flood of low-quality or poorly prepared filings.
- Increased case volume can delay urgent matters, such as:
- protective orders
- custody disputes
- emergency housing issues
- People may mistakenly trust AI over real legal advice, hurting their own cases.
Notable Real-World Example
- Family-law attorney Laura McLean described a divorce trial where the opposing party, representing herself, relied heavily on an AI-generated outline.
- The litigant struggled to present evidence, forgot key procedural steps, and ultimately lost.
- In another custody case, one of McLean’s clients second-guessed her advice because of a chatbot and chose to proceed pro se instead—also losing custody and parenting time.
Bottom Line
AI is making the legal system more accessible in theory, but in practice it is also:
- increasing the number of self-filed cases,
- adding strain to overburdened courts,
- and sometimes worsening outcomes for the people using it.
The episode frames this as a real tradeoff: more access for those without lawyers, but more congestion and inefficiency in a system already struggling to keep up.