AI in the Courtroom A Double Edged Legal Sword
An Unlikely Victory Powered by AI
A California woman facing eviction has achieved a remarkable legal victory, not with a high-priced lawyer, but with the help of artificial intelligence. According to a report from NBC News, Lynn White successfully overturned an eviction notice and avoided tens of thousands of dollars in penalties by using AI tools, including ChatGPT and the search platform Perplexity.
After initially losing a jury trial while working with a tenant advocacy group, White chose to represent herself. While this is often a risky strategy, ChatGPT proved to be a powerful ally. The AI identified potential procedural errors made by a judge, advised her on the necessary actions to take, and even drafted court responses. “I can’t overemphasize the usefulness of AI in my case,” White told reporters. “I never, ever, ever, ever could have won this appeal without AI.”
More Than a One-Off Success
White’s case is not an isolated incident. Staci Dennett, a home fitness business owner from New Mexico, also turned to AI to handle a legal dispute over unpaid debt. She used ChatGPT to refine her arguments, treating it like a demanding professor. “I would tell ChatGPT to pretend it was a Harvard Law professor and to rip my arguments apart,” she explained. “Rip it apart until I got an A-plus on the assignment.” Her AI-honed arguments were so compelling that the opposing lawyers reportedly told her she could have a career in law.
The Dark Side of AI in Law: Hallucinations and Sanctions
Despite these success stories, using AI for legal matters is fraught with peril. These tools are notorious for “hallucinating”—fabricating information that sounds plausible but is entirely false. This can have severe consequences for anyone representing themselves, known as pro se litigants. For instance, energy drink mogul Jack Owoc was sanctioned and ordered to perform community service after he filed a motion containing fake legal citations generated by AI.
Even professional lawyers are falling into this trap. A growing number of attorneys have been caught and penalized for submitting legal filings filled with AI-generated fabrications. In one recent case reported by 404 Media, a New York attorney caught using AI tried to submit an AI-generated explanation for his mistake, earning a scathing rebuke from the judge. Similarly, a California lawyer was hit with a historic $10,000 fine after 21 of the 23 case quotes in an AI-generated appeal were found to be completely made up.
The Growing Trend of AI Self-Representation
The accessibility of AI has led to a noticeable increase in people choosing to represent themselves in court. “I’ve seen more and more pro se litigants in the last year than I have in probably my entire career,” paralegal Meagan Holmes told NBC. This trend continues even as tech companies explicitly warn against it. Google's terms of service advise against relying on AI for legal advice, and Elon Musk’s xAI has a similar warning against using its services for high-stakes legal decisions. Nevertheless, these platforms readily provide detailed answers to legal queries.
A Tempting Tool with Professional Pitfalls
The situation presents a clear dilemma. For individuals who feel they cannot afford an attorney, AI appears to be a tempting alternative. Attorney Robert Freund sympathizes with this position, stating, “I can understand more easily how someone without a lawyer... would be tempted to rely on one of these tools.” However, he draws a firm line when it comes to legal professionals. “What I can’t understand is an attorney betraying the most fundamental parts of our responsibilities to our clients… and making these arguments that are based on total fabrication,” he concluded, highlighting the severe ethical breach involved when a lawyer gets caught using AI inappropriately.
