California resident Lynn White used artificial intelligence tools for self-representation in court, successfully overturning an eviction notice, according to NBC News. The technology helped her identify procedural errors and draft legal documents for an appeal, avoiding significant financial penalties.
White, who was behind on rent, had initially lost a jury trial regarding the eviction. Instead of continuing to work with a local tenant advocacy network, she consulted ChatGPT and the AI search platform Perplexity. According to reports, the AI analyzed her case, identified potential procedural errors made by the judge, informed her of actions to take, and drafted her responses to the court, which formed the basis of her successful appeal.
The technology was integral to her victory in a process that unfolded over several months. “I can’t overemphasize the usefulness of AI in my case,” White told NBC News. “I never, ever, ever, ever could have won this appeal without AI.” Her win prevented her from facing what was reported to be tens of thousands of dollars in potential penalties that had accrued during the litigation period.
In another case, Staci Dennett, a New Mexico home-fitness business owner, used AI to negotiate a settlement over unpaid debt. She developed a unique method for refining her arguments, instructing the chatbot to act as a demanding critic of her work. “I would tell ChatGPT to pretend it was a Harvard Law professor and to rip my arguments apart,” Dennett explained of her process.
She would continue this AI-driven critique “until I got an A-plus on the assignment.” The final legal arguments were so effective that the opposing lawyers commented on her skill. In an email, they reportedly wrote to her, “If the law is something you’re interested in as a profession, you could certainly do the job,” suggesting the high quality of the AI-assisted output.
These successful outcomes are set against the significant risks of using AI in legal settings. The tools are prone to “hallucinations,” where they generate and present fabricated information as fact. This danger was demonstrated when energy drink mogul Jack Owoc was sanctioned in August after filing a motion containing numerous AI-generated, non-existent legal citations. As a result, he was ordered to complete ten hours of community service.
The problem of AI misuse extends to legal professionals. A growing number of attorneys have been discovered submitting filings with fabricated AI-generated content, resulting in sanctions and professional embarrassment. In one recent case reported by 404 Media, a New York attorney was caught using AI for a filing and then submitted an AI-generated explanation for the error, drawing sharp criticism from the presiding judge.
“This case adds yet another unfortunate chapter to the story of artificial intelligence misuse in the legal profession,” the judge wrote in a scathing decision. In a separate incident in August, a California attorney received what was termed a “historic” $10,000 fine for a similar offense. The lawyer submitted an AI-generated appeal in which 21 of the 23 cited court cases were found to be completely fabricated.
Despite these dangers, the accessibility of AI has fueled a rise in pro-se litigants. “I’ve seen more and more pro-se litigants in the last year than I have in probably my entire career,” Thorpe Shwer paralegal Meagan Holmes told NBC. This trend continues even as companies like Google and Elon Musk’s xAI issue warnings against using their tools for legal advice or for “high-stakes automated decisions that affect a person’s… legal or material rights.”
Attorney Robert Freund acknowledged the dilemma facing individuals without legal funds. “I can understand more easily how someone without a lawyer, and maybe who feels like they don’t have the money to access an attorney, would be tempted to rely on one of these tools,” he stated to NBC. Freund then condemned attorneys who do so, calling it a betrayal of their core duties. “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.”
