Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is transforming various aspects of life, including the legal field. One of the most notable recent developments is the increasing use of AI tools like ChatGPT by litigants who represent themselves. For many, ChatGPT offers a quick and accessible way to draft responses, understand legal language, or simply sound more confident when dealing with lawyers.
However, while AI can be a useful assistant, it is not faultless. In practice, many unrepresented defendants rely heavily on ChatGPT-generated content that may be inaccurate or fail to address the core issues in dispute. This can cause frustration for legal professionals and even complicate or delay the resolution of cases.
Why do Litigants in Person use ChatGPT?
Litigation can be complex, and some may find it intimidating, especially for those without legal representation or legal background. Instructing solicitors is costly, and often out of reach for many individuals or small businesses. In this context, AI tools like ChatGPT become attractive alternatives.
Furthermore, litigants in person may not have access to online legal research platforms such as Practical Law and LexisNexis, where a fee must be paid to gain access. ChatGPT is a free platform that provides quick answers, and can even draft legal documents such as witness statements, if it has been provided with the information of the individual’s matter. While legal research platforms provide templates for witness statements and particulars of claim, they may not draft these legal documents as ChatGPT does. ChatGPT offers immediate access to legal sounding language that feel more professional and polished, which does not require an individual to spend a lot of time drafting a document.
For lay people, ChatGPT’s accessibility and conversational style can be strengthening. It can also provide a sense of control over a stressful legal process.
The Limitations and Risks of Relying on AI
Despite its benefits, AI-generated responses are not a substitute for tailored legal advice. ChatGPT, while powerful, can sometimes produce lengthy or unfocused text that misses the specific legal point that needs attention. It does not truly “understand” the nuances of a case, nor can it provide strategic insight tailored to the unique circumstances of a dispute.
In litigation, precision and conciseness are often critical. Overly long or irrelevant responses can frustrate legal professionals and Judges, and create confusion about what needs to be resolved. In worse scenarios, litigants may feel falsely reassured by AI-generated answers, believing they have all the legal answers, when in fact, important issues remain unaddressed.
The Impact on the Litigation Process
From the perspective of legal professionals, dealing with AI-generated responses from litigants in person has both advantages and challenges. On one hand, it shows that people are making use of available technology to engage with the process. On the other, it can complicate communication and lengthen the time needed to clarify issues or move towards a resolution.
When responses do not address the core of a dispute, or when documents are unnecessarily long, legal professionals must spend additional time explaining the core issues and guiding the litigant back on track. This added complexity can increase costs.
Lawyers are using AI too
AI is also being adopted carefully by legal professionals. Lawyers are increasingly using AI tools to assist with document review, initial drafting, legal research, and even trial preparation. AI can streamline tasks such as generating first drafts of correspondence, suggesting clauses in contracts, or summarising long documents, helping to improve efficiency and reduce costs for clients.
However, as with litigants in person, the use of AI by lawyers must be approached with caution. Courts have already begun addressing the risks posed by overreliance on AI. In Ayinde, Hamad Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank Q.P.S.C and QNB Capital LLC, the High Court warned against the use of AI-generated content, particularly when it comes to citing authorities or legal precedent. The case highlighted the dangers of “hallucinated” case law, and reiterated that lawyers have a duty to verify the accuracy of any content they file with the court.
This case serves as a reminder that while AI can enhance legal practice, it cannot replace the diligence, judgment, and responsibility required of legal professionals. Lawyers who incorporate AI into their work must still exercise independent legal reasoning and ensure that their work meets the high standards expected by the court.
AI as a Tool, not a Solution
The rise of ChatGPT and similar AI tools in litigation is unlikely to slow down. These technologies offer valuable support, especially for those who choose to represent themselves rather than incur the costs of legal advice. For many litigants in person, AI provides a sense of confidence and empowerment, helping them engage more effectively with the legal process, even when facing opponents with legal expertise.
However, it is essential to recognise AI as an aid rather than a substitute for professional legal guidance. While AI can help draft responses and clarify basic legal concepts, it cannot replace the tailored advice and strategic insight that qualified lawyers provide. In other words, ultimately, human judgment has more value than a computer-generated response.
Encouraging realistic expectations about what AI can and cannot do will help both sides engage more effectively. For litigants in person, this means using AI-generated content as a starting point, then seeking advice or clarification where possible. For legal professionals, it means patience and clear communication to help those using AI navigate the process successfully.
Conclusion
AI tools like ChatGPT are changing how people interact with the legal system, particularly for those without formal representation. While these tools offer accessibility and confidence, they also come with limitations that can affect the progress of litigation.
Lawyers too, are exploring the benefits of AI, but must do so with an awareness of its risks, especially when presenting to the courts. The decision in the Ayinde matter makes clear that AI cannot replace professional judgment and responsibility.
By approaching AI as a helpful assistant rather than a definitive source of legal knowledge, litigants and legal professionals can work together more productively. Ultimately, clear communication, realistic expectations, and professional guidance remain key to resolving disputes effectively in an era of evolving technology.
Written by: Angel Asare-Owusu, CS Litigation Paralegal
Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of debt recovery on 020 8290 7400 or email info@jpcreditsolutions.co.uk
To ensure you do not miss out on similar articles and legal updates, please subscribe up to our newsletter.