New Jersey Law Journal: The New Challenge for the Judiciary – Pro Se Litigants and the Weaponization of AI
New Jersey courts are seeing a sharp rise in self-represented, or pro se, litigants using artificial intelligence to generate pleadings. Submissions that once commonly arrived handwritten or unstructured may now look refined, formatted, and seemingly persuasive. Across both state and federal systems, the explosion of these AI-assisted filings has forced judges, clerks, and court administrators to continuously change how they approach filings from pro se litigants. The practical impacts, however, can show that change is not always a good thing.
The Illusion of Legitimacy
At first glance, AI-assisted pleadings appear professional. They contain what purports to be case citations, proper formatting, and legal phrasing that looks genuine and accurate. But upon closer inspection, much of the material contained in these filings is hollow. The submissions are commonly filled with hallucinated cases and non-existent or entirely inapplicable statutes, rules, and regulations, and they consist of arguments that are disconnected from real precedent and have no basis in law. The grammar may be perfect, and the presentation may be convincing, but, when subject to scrutiny, the content proves to be nothing more than the gilded coating of a legal argument.
AI-generated pleadings constitute a perfect example of form over substance. A pleading that merely looks like it could have been written by a lawyer is not the same as one that was prepared by a person who has actually studied the law, read and understood the authorities, and can properly apply the law to the relevant facts. Instead of carefully considered analysis, AI often will take snippets of legal language and assemble them into confident assertions that sound persuasive, but in actuality are a collage of misplaced and out-of-context, or, even worse, made up quotations.
The illusion of legitimacy that comes with AI-generated submissions forces clerks and judges to expend additional hours vetting citations and reviewing arguments that would have once been quickly dismissed. Even the seemingly simple act of confirming that each cited authority actually exists can consume significant amounts valuable judicial time because AI-generated work product has made once-obvious nonsense harder to spot with the naked eye. The meticulous review now required to parse out hallucinated authorities drains already limited court resources that could otherwise be devoted to legitimate matters.
Judicial Countermeasures
Historically, pro se litigants enjoyed a degree of procedural flexibility. Courts recognized that non-lawyers deserve a degree of procedural latitude and have often waived fees or excused technical missteps to preserve access to justice. But the arrival of generative AI has forced courts to wrestle with that dynamic. Pro se litigants can now produce enormous volumes of filings, sometimes dozens in a single week, each polished enough to appear credible on their face but completely lacking in legal merit. As a result of this influx, courts are forced to grapple with the fact that traditional leniency for pro se litigants may no longer be practical in every instance, and judges have been forced to rethink how access to justice operates in each case.
One proposed solution is to require pro se litigants to certify that each filing has been personally vetted and verified, that every factual statement is true to the best of their knowledge, every cited case or rule has been checked for accuracy, and that no portion of the document contains hallucinated or fabricated material. If a filing later proves to include false or non-existent authorities, the litigant should face immediate sanctions, including monetary fines, the striking of pleadings, and the obligation to pay the court’s administrative costs.
Ordinarily, it is exceedingly rare for a pro se litigant to be required to pay monetary fines and administrative costs. The leniency such litigants are afforded, however, was designed for good faith individuals navigating the legal system on their own, not for those who flood the docket with unverified AI-generated material that strains the judiciary. The cumulative labor and financial burden imposed on court staff resulting from the mass filing of cases using unvetted, AI-generated pleadings can be substantial. Fairness requires some mechanism of cost recovery.
This remedy is not punitive; it is protective. The objective is to preserve the integrity of the court’s time and resources for legitimate disputes, rather than allow automated or abusive filings to crowd out those seeking real justice. Finally, judicial staff and law clerks must be trained to identify the hallmarks of AI-generated material, unusual phrasing, fake citations, repetitive arguments, a preference for hyphens, or implausibly broad legal claims. Courts should also begin developing internal guidance and standing orders that formally define how to handle filings that show signs of automation or fabrication. These internal guidance and standing orders should be regularly reviewed and updated to keep pace with the rapidly changing technology.
Access to Justice and Judicial Integrity
Access to the courts is a fundamental right; the justice system must remain open to all. Openness, however, cannot mean unlimited tolerance for filings that are knowingly false, abusive, or automated. When filings are created without human verification or are shown to contain invented or woefully misplaced authorities, they no longer represent genuine participation in the judicial process; they represent exploitation of it.
The goal of increased regulation is not to punish pro se litigants, but to protect the judiciary from being overwhelmed by abuse. The courts must preserve accessibility while demanding accountability. Requiring certification, imposing costs when necessary, and limiting filings in extreme instances will allow the judiciary to strike that balance.
The Path Forward
AI will inevitably continue to play a major role in how people engage with the legal system, and there is no doubt that many of the changes AI will bring to the practice of law will be beneficial. But the judiciary must adapt quickly to ensure that technological advances serve justice rather than undermine it. Certification rules, structured sanctions, and enhanced clerk training represent the next logical step in preserving both the openness and integrity of the court system.
If action is not taken, courts risk continuing to be buried under a flood of filings that look legitimate but are built on fiction. With sensible reforms, however, the judiciary can preserve both efficiency and fairness, ensuring that access to justice remains a right, not a loophole.
Reprinted with permission from the June 30, 2026 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal. © 2026. ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.