Should I use artificial intelligence (AI) to draft documents to use in a case I represent myself in?
22 September 2026
No.
When faced with the need to file a document in a case it may seem easy to plug in the facts of your case, get a document from AI, and then file it in the case, however, the ramifications can be drastic.
A few items to understand, first, everyone involved in the case will know that you used AI. As anyone with some familiarity with using AI knows, especially in the legal setting, AI has a certain way of writing. And in legal writing, the content is very often researched, (as is explored more below), so even more than a writing style will be in evidence to show AI use.
Second, AI lies. Again, anyone with some experience with exploring AI’s capabilities in the legal setting knows, it frequently creates cases and statutes that do not even exist. It has even created “doctrines” that do not exist, and when challenged, it will then frequently double and even triple down, on the lie. These are now called AI hallucinations. For example, in the case of Dastou v. Holmes a judge found that a lawyer used AI to create jury instructions and motions in limine to prepare for a trial, held a hearing, and then sanctioned the attorney, albeit lightly, for using it. Dastou v. Holmes, 2025 Mass. Super. LEXIS 211 2381CV02212, (decided June 25, 2025). The court reported the results as follows: “I identified citations to cases that do not exist, a quotation attributed to a real case that was not contained in the opinion, and misstatements as to the holding of real cases. One proposed jury instruction introduced what sounded like a legitimate legal concept, but that concept was fictitious.” Id. at. *1. This is only one of many embarrassing episodes of attorneys using AI in recent months.
The author had not learned of any court using AI before, but just recently it was reported that a federal court in Mississippi used AI in drafting an order. The case is styled Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Ritch. 799 F. Supp. 3d 571 (S.D. Miss. 2025). It was a disaster. The order issued by the court had incorrect parties, cited incorrect allegations, misquoted a statute, and referred to testimony of people that did not appear in the record of the case. Murphy, Pat, TRO laced with AI hallucinations raises alarm bells, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Sept. 21, 2026 at 12. Even though upon it being exposed it was replaced with a different order, it was thought so important that the news made its way to Senator Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, whom drafted a letter to the judge. Id. Arguably even worse, it appeared that the replacement order had an AI hallucination in it as well. Id. It was blamed on mismanagement, but the occurrence raised the idea of the judge being replaced from the case due to the lack of confidence one could have in proper adjudicating of the case. Id.
Lastly, any use of AI contributes at least to some degree to what is now termed cognitive debt in the education realm. If you are representing yourself in a case, you should be trying to learn as much as you can about the legal process that will make you better able to represent yourself. Going through the process of drafting, serving, and filing any legal document will make you more prepared to do it in the future. Relying on anything that does not involve you creating a document and presenting it yourself only makes you less capable the next time.
The bottom line is that the use of AI generated documents in the legal setting is very dangerous because they produce documents that give the appearance of legitimacy but upon closer inspection are false and misleading (specious is the word). This may have less risk in other areas, but in the legal field where documents are scrutinized more than any other, it will very likely to result in harmful ramifications. Do not do it.