Self-represented litigants use ChatGPT in court, with mixed results
Self-represented litigants in the United States have increasingly turned to ChatGPT and Perplexity for legal assistance. While some, including Lynn White in California, have achieved successful case outcomes, lawyers report that others have faced penalties from AI-generated inaccurate or fabricated information in court filings.
What happened
Self-represented litigants have increasingly used ChatGPT and Perplexity to conduct legal research, identify procedural errors, research applicable laws, and draft court responses.
Lynn White used ChatGPT and Perplexity to represent herself in an eviction appeal in Long Beach, California, after losing her initial jury trial with a lawyer from a tenant advocacy network.
Reported impact
White successfully overturned her eviction notice using AI assistance, avoiding approximately $55,000 in penalties and more than $18,000 in overdue rent.
Legal professionals report that while some self-represented litigants have achieved favorable outcomes, others have faced steep penalties for submitting court filings with inaccurate or nonexistent information.
Index analysis
AI tools are producing mixed results in court according to lawyers and litigants interviewed, with some reporting helpfulness in navigating procedure and legal jargon while others have suffered consequences from AI-generated inaccurate or fabricated information.
Governance controls
AI companies typically warn customers not to rely entirely on their products for legal advice, though these warnings appear not to prevent widespread use by self-represented litigants.
Classification
Sources and evidence
Sources not yet published
This record was researched and written by the Index from original reporting. Its sources are still being verified by an editor, and they are listed here once that check is complete. Until then the record carries no reviewer.