Written by Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in legal proceedings, from drafting documents to assisting with legal research. However, while AI offers remarkable efficiency, it is not infallible. Over-reliance on AI without human oversight can lead to serious legal missteps, as seen in the case of one Litigant in Person (LiP) who learned the hard way that AI-generated legal documents are only as reliable as the scrutiny they receive.
The Rise of AI in Legal Work
AI-powered tools such as automated legal research platforms, document drafting software, and even AI-assisted case law analysis have become more accessible to self-represented litigants. With promises of simplifying complex legal tasks, these tools can be valuable—but they are not a substitute for human expertise.
A Case Study: When AI Misleads Instead of Assists
One self-represented litigant, convinced that AI could level the playing field against legally represented opponents, relied heavily on AI tools to draft legal arguments and conduct case law research. However, confirmation bias, combined with a lack of understanding of prompt engineering and AI limitations, resulted in significant errors that ultimately harmed the case.
1. Misinterpretation of Case Law
A major issue was the misapplication of case law. The litigant used an AI tool to find legal precedents supporting their argument. However, AI lacks true legal reasoning and often generates results based on pattern recognition rather than contextual understanding. The result? The AI suggested case law that, at first glance, seemed supportive, but upon closer examination, actually undermined the litigant’s argument. The opposing legal team swiftly pointed this out, weakening the credibility of the case.
2. Procedural Errors and Overconfidence
AI-generated documents helped structure submissions, but they also included incorrect references to procedural rules, leading to confusion and additional legal costs. The litigant, assuming AI-generated content was accurate, did not cross-check critical details. The court took a dim view of these procedural missteps, leading to delays and additional scrutiny.
3. Reinforcing Bias Instead of Challenging It
Instead of objectively analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the litigant fell into the trap of confirmation bias—feeding AI prompts that reinforced their existing views rather than asking neutral, open-ended questions. This created an echo chamber, where the AI continually returned responses that aligned with their desired outcome rather than highlighting potential weaknesses in their position.
4. The Risk of Excessive Litigation
The overconfidence AI provided led the litigant to pursue legal challenges that lacked merit, believing that the AI-generated arguments were infallible. The court eventually deemed the continued applications as unreasonable, increasing the risk of a Civil Restraint Order (CRO)—a court-imposed restriction that prevents individuals from making further legal claims without prior approval.
The Risks of Over-Reliance on AI in Litigation
While AI can be an effective aid, it remains a tool, not a replacement for legal expertise. Some of the risks include:
- Fabricated Case Law Citations: AI-generated documents have, in some instances, cited non-existent case law—a problem that has already led to sanctions in some courts.
- Contextual Misinterpretation: AI lacks the ability to assess how a judge may interpret legal principles in a specific case.
- Procedural Inaccuracy: Courts demand precision, and AI tools can inadvertently misstate procedural steps.
- Inflexibility in Strategy: AI works from pattern recognition, but it cannot strategise in real-time as a human advocate would.
Balancing AI with Human Oversight
This case study serves as a cautionary tale: AI should be used as a supporting tool, not a sole legal advisor. Here’s how LiPs and legal professionals can use AI effectively while mitigating risks:
- Verify All AI-Generated Content: Always cross-check legal research and case law citations with official sources.
- Seek Professional Review: Even if using AI for drafting, consult a legal expert to review submissions before filing.
- Understand Legal Strategy: AI can assist with formatting and structure, but a clear legal strategy must come from human reasoning.
- Use AI as an Efficiency Tool, Not a Replacement: AI should speed up tasks like document drafting but should not replace careful legal analysis.
Conclusion
AI is reshaping the legal landscape, offering efficiency and accessibility to self-represented litigants. However, it is not a foolproof solution. This case study highlights the dangers of blind reliance on AI-generated legal work, especially when dealing with case law interpretation and procedural accuracy. The key takeaway? AI is a powerful tool—but in the courtroom, human expertise remains irreplaceable.