The Rise of ChatGPT and AI in Civil Litigation
The year 2025 has been the year of AI and ChatGPT. Much has been made of the use of AI and ChatGPT in the law, and in particular, in civil litigation. Like many things, there are pros and cons.The Benefits of AI in the Law:
The ability for individuals to help themselves, to better understand the law, and to better use the law to their advantage is a good thing. This attorney has certainly seen an increased use of ChatGPT and other AI products by clients and prospective clients. When individuals use AI to help them analyze their situation and understand the legal doctrines and concepts surrounding their situation it can lead to more productive and in depth conversations about the intricacies of the law and a person's case between a client and a lawyer. It used to be that when attorneys would talk between themselves about a case or a legal issue it is a different conversation than an attorney would have with a non-attorney about the case. This is because (at least most of the time), the attorneys understand the depth and scope of the legal arguments. Now that individuals have more tools to be able to better understand the law it can enable similar high level conversations between attorneys and non-attorneys. This in turn can help clients to be able to make better well-informed decisions about the course of action they'd like to take.
Pro Se Representation
"Pro se" essentially means that an individual is representing themselves without an attorney in a court case. There is a large subset of civil litigation cases to where it just does not make economic sense for individuals to hire an attorney. Most of the time those cases are in small claims court (in Ohio, the small claims court has a jurisdictional limit or maximum award of $6,000). It does not make economic sense to pay an attorney thousands of dollars for a dispute over a few thousand dollars. The attorneys at Harris Engler LLC only like getting involved and helping clients for situations where we can actually help people. It does not really provide a net benefit if you pay an attorney $3,000 to win a $3,000 court judgment. The only person who gains in that situation is the attorney. And so the use of ChatGPT or AI for civil lawsuits that fall within the jurisdictional limits of small claims court provides a useful tool for individuals to better help themselves and their cases. There are a lot of disputes under $10,000. Until the rise of AI, these situations presented a barrier or practical wall for individuals to be able to obtain justice. So it is an aspirational hope that now and into the future, individuals will better be able to actually obtain justice for situations where it has not made economic sense to get an attorney involved in previously.The Downsides of AI in the Law:
Humans are imperfect. So are the machines and tools built by humans. At least in the year 2025 there is still a lot to be desired when it comes to the information and analysis that is output by AI tools. AI can "hallucinate" or simply make up law or cases that do not exist. That is a serious problem and helps no one. Also, many AI tools more or less tell the user what they want to hear. To that extent, it does not necessarily provide an objective analysis based on actual knowledge and experience. It combs though information and provides what the user is looking for. The AI is more or less spitting back what you are inputting into it. This has obvious downsides. The attorneys at Harris Engler will strive to treat clients with the respect of hearing the truth and doing our best to provide a no-BS objective analysis. Sometimes that means you'll hear what you do not want to hear. Again, the goal is to actually help, not to tell you what you want to hear.Sometimes AI will spit out an analysis that is all over the place and citing law and precedent for jurisdictions that are not binding in the venue that the case is actually in. This can be counterproductive. To the extent that I've seen legal briefs written by AI, I can only say that I have no fear that AI will take over the jobs of attorneys anytime soon. AI will likely improve its brief writing skills over time, but from what I've seen, at present, it will be easy for an actual attorney to defeat the legal argument written by an AI. Sometimes it simply creates more work to have to negate ten irrelevant points. It is this aspect of AI that is particularly worrisome to judges and courts, and for good reason.
Courts across the country are prohibiting the use of AI in written briefs or requiring a certification that AI was not used. It is usually fairly obvious when AI is used. At its worst, it could clog up court dockets and create more work with no real net benefit. As time goes on, the useful and practical applications of AI in the law and in civil litigation will become more clear. However, for cases where there is a lot at stake, cases in the Courts of Common Pleas, Federal Courts, or Courts of Appeal, it is not the place for AI at least in any motions or filings with the Court.
Another aspect of using AI to write briefs or memos is that it prevents the user from actually learning or knowing the material. In a time before Google Maps or other navigation tools, people used maps (or Mapquest!) to figure out where they were going. Once navigation tools became prevalent, that part of our brains seems to have gone dormant. Now you may not know how to get to a restaurant across town that you've been to a few times because you use a navigation tool to get there every time. The same can be said for the use of AI when writing. When the AI writes the content then it prevents the user from actually thinking about and knowing the concepts.
There are numerous components to a civil lawsuit, there are motions and briefs, and then there is oral argument in court and trials. When AI has written a brief, then the individual behind that AI generated brief will not actually know the argument themselves very well and it would be very difficult for them to defend an oral argument behind it.
It is often a difficult thing for new attorney to learn that each court within a county has slightly different rules for how they do things, each county within a state has different ways of doing things, and different judges within the same court have different ways of doing things. Only an experienced civil litigator who has put in the time to understand these differences and understand what works best in each particular courtroom can provide the best representation.
