AI in the Court

As AI becomes more and more prevalent in people’s everyday lives, it also increases people’s reliance on using AI as a substitute for professionals. Need tax advice? Consult with AI. Need medical advice? Consult with AI. Need to know how to invest money? Consult with AI. And while ample information and AI advice can be found by a simple internet search, there are possible consequences of relying on that AI advice that AI users need to be aware of.

Legal advice is an area more and more people are searching for AI advice on before consulting with an attorney. There can be benefits to doing this – it could provide the user with some basic information on the legal area they are wondering about; or provide them with a list of questions they can ask their attorney at a meeting; or give them some ideas and thoughts before pursuing legal work that could be costly, timely and emotional. However, at the end of the day the user should not rely on AI as the “end all” provider of legal information.

One area of increased risk that is being seen in the legal profession is pro se parties proceeding in court actions using AI in their arguments. This is dangerous for a number of reasons. First, attorneys are trained and educated on court procedures, rules and decorum. Attorneys who practice in the courtroom spend time on how to properly lay out arguments to a court, whether written or oral, and learning rules and caselaw to aid their arguments. Someone searching AI as to how to proceed in court will not have that experience to guide them through the process.

Second, AI is not always correct. There have been numerous instances of pro se parties and attorneys submitting briefings to the court that contain case citations or statutes that do not even exist. Attorneys have been disbarred for citing AI cases without fact checking if the case was real or not. Even attorneys relying on AI are not immune from the dangers of relying on AI; all must fact check what they are providing to the court.

Third, proceeding on your own in court and relying on AI could create a litany of issues if you end up needing an attorney. Oftentimes a party will initiate a court action on their own in hopes of saving costs or thinking it won’t be that complicated; then all of a sudden they are knee deep in court deadlines and orders and do not know what to do, even though AI may be telling them to do “something.” Hiring an attorney at this stage is useful, but it will now take that attorney time to correct the issues that AI might have created.

Many estates and trusts end up in court with parties litigating estates, wills, capacity of individuals and more. Having an experienced attorney provide you with the advice and guidance of how to navigate the court is the better option than relying on AI to represent you pro se in the courtroom. While in the short run AI might provide you with some good initial advice as to what you should be asking an attorney, how the matter may proceed in court, what results you may or may not expect, etc., it likely won’t provide you with the skills and knowledge that are required in the courtroom.

AI can be useful for all; however, proceed with caution!