therISeofChatgptandthewaveofnewproSeLItIgatIon
Trial & litigation Section Chair : LaurenHumphries – BuchananIngersoll & Rooney
our legal landscape has been transformed by the rise of AI tools like ChatgPT , and one of the most noticeable shifts is in the sophistication — or apparent sophistication — of pro se filings and communications .
The more recent pro se filings are striking . They are polished , formatted , and peppered with case law citations — far more refined than what we have traditionally experienced from unrepresented parties . But here ’ s the rub : the cited cases ( if they even exist ) have no relevance to the propositions for which they are cited .
Still , AI tools like ChatgPT are revolutionizing access to the legal
system . For pro se litigants who might otherwise struggle to draft pleadings or understand procedural or statutory requirements , ChatgPT levels the playing field by providing them with the ability to produce professionallooking documents without legal training or expensive attorney ’ s fees .
The downside ? This newfound confidence is misleading . ChatgPT lacks the ability to critically analyze legal issues or correctly interpret case law , leading to flawed arguments masked in
thepopularityof Chatgpthasled toanunexpected development — seeminglysophisticated prosepleadings . Buthere ’ stherub : the citedcases ( iftheyeven exist ) havenorelevance tothepropositionsfor whichtheyarecited .
professional- sounding language or legalese . While a pro se litigant may feel empowered by ChatgPT ’ s polished output , attorneys have to spend more time addressing pro se filings that are muddled with misapplied legal principles , but packaged in a way that appears to be sophisticated and compelling . Attorneys litigating against pro-se parties may find themselves reaching for and relying on the following line of case-law : Kohn v . City of Miami
Beach , 611 So . 2d 538 , 539 ( Fla 3d
Continuedonpage59
5 8 M A r - A P r 2 0 2 5 | H C B A L A W Y E r