By James T. Tyminski Jr.The tentacles of artificial intelligence reach in varied and often surprising ways. In civil litigation, we’re on the precipice of a seismic shift where the AI tools will be used by both lawyers and self-represented/pro se litigants. In 2025, we saw the beginnings of that shift with the breadth and depth of the shift yet to be determined. What we are experiencing is more pro se litigants filing more motions albeit without the knowledge of whether the motion is ripe, necessary, and/or appropriate. The AI tools assist the non-lawyer litigant in terms of accuracy and formatting. Often the cases cited in an AI driven motion are non-existent or the holding of the case is different rendering the motion less than credible. However, this takes time, effort and resources to respond to AI driven motions that can be generated in mere minutes. In a case in our office, a pro se litigant has filed 29 separate motions over the course of the case. Many of the motions were not ripe, necessary or appropriate but they all have to be responded to, and the cost of defending the case far exceeds what we would have seen prior to AI assisting a self-represented litigant.
The potential for exponential growth in terms of more pro se litigants exists because AI makes it easier to file a complaint and much easier to file motions after that complaint has been filed. Prior to AI proliferation, a litigant lacked the skill to generate colorable pleadings that can now be generated with a few strokes of the keyboard. AI assisted self-represented litigation has the potential to overwhelm Court dockets, preoccupy staff attorneys and Judges with less than impactful, unnecessary, and/or unripe motion play.
We’re starting to see AI impact in real time both in Ohio and nationally. The litigation cost factor is not just measured in responding to motions but also in responding to voluminous discovery requests. AI allows for boiler plate discovery requests as well as specifically tailored requests to be generated by a pro se litigant in short order. In the case previously mentioned, the self-represented litigant propounded 236 interrogatories, 144 requests for admissions and 38 requests for production of documents. Obviously, AI in this instance had not factored in civil procedure rules and limitations on discovery. The volume of discovery served, and motions filed not only drives up litigation costs and clogs dockets, but it lengthens the time frame for a case to move from beginning to end.
Many courts have put in place limitations on AI use by attorneys with penalties that can be significant for inaccurate AI driven products being filed. Pro se litigants do not face the same penalties or scrutiny, at least not yet. I suspect there will be similar limitations put in place for pro se litigants. In crafting penalties and rules for AI use by unrepresented litigants, governing bodies must be mindful that AI is helping people who might otherwise not have representation or access to court systems and justice.
The increase in AI driven self-represented litigants was marginal but detectable in 2025 and certainly time will tell if advances in AI and increased familiarity with it by the general public will lead to a significant increase in pro se litigation, but the anecdotal evidence points to a substantial increase in unrepresented litigation growth in 2026 and beyond.