AIn’t Nothing Like the Real Thing: How Legal Research Programs Can Provide the Needed Safety Rails for Pro Se Litigants Using AI in Litigation

Authors

• Nicole Belbin, Western New England University School of LawFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2026

Abstract

An estimated 92% of legal needs go unmet in America, leaving a growing number of pro se litigants to “manage their own cause.” Between 2000 and 2019, 27% of all civil cases filed in U.S. District Courts, totaling 1,501,079 cases, had at least one party without attorney representation. The legal profession is abuzz about the potential for generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools to “smooth out any mismatch between available resources and urgent needs in our court system”; however, “hallucinations” have quickly proved a limitation to reaching this technology’s full potential. The complexity of legal research and analysis increases the chance of “hallucinations.” Recent cases of attorneys and pro se litigants being sanctioned for using GenAI-created “hallucinated” cases illustrate the risk in using GenAI for litigation preparation. It seems unfair to penalize a pro se litigant who most likely does not understand what “relevant caselaw” really means, much less whether a case is still good law. Courts need to recognize that this knowledge disparity is a problem, but one that can be minimized without drastic measures like prohibiting the use of GenAI.

This Article explores why human intervention is needed to realize GenAI’s full potential to close the justice gap for pro se litigants. Specifically, this Article recommends the creation of legal information literacy training programs that focus on legal research as a way to close the justice gap for pro se litigants. The legal information literacy program that this Article promotes blends traditional forms of legal research training available to practitioners with resources typically available to pro se litigants, such as GenAI. Implementing this proposed program will likely benefit the broader practice of the law in the following ways: (1) teaching pro se litigants basics of legal research could improve their case outcomes; (2) warning pro se litigants about the dangers of GenAI could prevent dismissals caused because of “hallucinated” cases in court filings; (3) training pro se litigants in effective GenAI use could narrow the justice gap between pro se litigants and those who retain legal counsel; and (4) involving law librarians in these programs could demonstrate the importance of law librarianship in the community.