The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence is reshaping access to justice in the United States, with a growing number of litigants relying on AI Litigation tools to prepare legal filings, challenge court decisions and represent themselves without lawyers.
The trend is drawing attention from judges, legal professionals and policymakers as artificial intelligence lowers the barriers to entering the legal system while simultaneously raising concerns about court efficiency, legal accuracy and professional accountability.
The debate gained renewed visibility through the case of Amr Abou El-Magd, an Egyptian-born litigant who represented himself in a cross-border child-custody dispute that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Throughout the proceedings, he relied on guidance from friends, court staff and ChatGPT to help prepare legal filings and procedural submissions. According to his account, the approach saved him nearly $97,000 in anticipated legal fees.
While his case highlights the potential of AI to expand access to legal resources, it also illustrates the broader transformation underway across the legal profession.
Self-Representation Enters the AI Era
Artificial intelligence tools are making it easier than ever for individuals to draft complaints, motions and legal arguments without hiring attorneys.
Research published in March by scholars from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Southern California found that the number of self-represented litigants in U.S. federal courts rose sharply following the widespread adoption of generative AI tools.
The study estimated that more than 39,000 individuals filed cases without legal representation during the twelve months ending September 2025, roughly double historical averages. Researchers also found that court filings submitted by self-represented litigants surged by 158% during a six-month period between late 2024 and early 2025 compared with pre-AI norms.
For many users, the attraction is straightforward: lower costs and easier access to legal information. AI systems can organize facts, identify legal concepts and generate court-ready drafts in minutes, reducing work that previously required professional assistance.
Access to Justice or New Risks?
Supporters argue that AI is helping close the justice gap for individuals unable to afford legal representation.
Legal-aid organizations report growing interest from low-income litigants seeking guidance on how to use AI tools when navigating court procedures. Some institutions have even begun developing educational materials to help users understand the opportunities and limitations of these technologies.
Yet the benefits are accompanied by significant risks.
One of the most persistent concerns involves AI “hallucinations”—instances in which models generate inaccurate or entirely fabricated information. Such errors have already reached courtrooms. In recent years, U.S. judges have sanctioned lawyers and law firms after court submissions contained fictitious legal citations generated by AI systems.
According to databases tracking such incidents, American courts have imposed sanctions in more than 150 cases involving AI-generated legal inaccuracies since the technology entered mainstream use.
Pressure on Courts and Law Firms
The growing use of AI is creating challenges not only for judges but also for the legal industry itself.
As drafting legal documents becomes faster and cheaper, courts face rising volumes of filings requiring review. Even when cases lack merit, judges remain obligated to examine submissions and address procedural requirements, increasing pressure on already stretched judicial resources.
The economic implications extend far beyond individual court cases. Legal services represent one of the largest professional-services industries in the United States, generating annual revenues measured in hundreds of billions of dollars. At the same time, legal technology has emerged as one of the fastest-growing segments of the global AI economy as investors and law firms seek tools capable of reducing costs, accelerating research and improving productivity.
Rather than resisting the technology, many large law firms are increasingly incorporating AI into their own operations. Applications ranging from document review and contract analysis to due diligence and legal research are already reducing the time required for routine tasks, allowing lawyers to focus more heavily on litigation strategy, negotiation and client advisory services.
Companies operating in the legal-services sector increasingly acknowledge that generative AI could disrupt traditional business models. Rather than eliminating lawyers, however, many experts believe the technology will change how legal professionals work, automating routine tasks while increasing demand for strategic advice, advocacy and specialist expertise.
A Turning Point for the Legal System
The emergence of AI-assisted litigation reflects a broader shift taking place across knowledge-based professions. Just as artificial intelligence is transforming software development, education and financial services, it is beginning to reshape how legal information is produced and consumed.
The phenomenon is not limited to the United States. Courts, regulators and legal associations in countries including the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia are examining how generative AI is changing access to legal services, professional responsibilities and court procedures. Similar debates are emerging across Europe as policymakers consider new rules governing the use of artificial intelligence in legal and judicial settings.
The trend may also carry important implications for emerging markets, including countries across the Middle East and Africa, where access to legal representation can be uneven and legal costs often present barriers to justice. AI-powered legal assistance could expand access to legal information, although concerns regarding accuracy, regulation and digital literacy remain significant.
The challenge for courts will be balancing greater access to justice against the risks posed by inaccurate information and growing case volumes. Regulators, meanwhile, must determine how AI-generated legal content should be governed without restricting innovation.
Looking ahead, artificial intelligence is unlikely to replace lawyers, but it is already reshaping how legal services are delivered, consumed and priced. The legal profession’s future may increasingly depend on combining human judgment with machine efficiency. For courts, the challenge will be managing growing volumes of AI-assisted filings while safeguarding the integrity of judicial processes. For governments and businesses, the broader lesson is that artificial intelligence is beginning to transform not only technology sectors, but also some of the world’s oldest institutions. Those able to balance accessibility, innovation and accountability are likely to define the next generation of legal services.
