Artificial intelligence can be useful for organizing information, generating questions, or helping someone understand unfamiliar legal terminology. It can also produce an answer that sounds authoritative while being incomplete, outdated, or simply wrong. For a person representing themselves in court, that difference can determine whether an argument is heard, a deadline is preserved, or a claim is lost.
Massachusetts pro se litigants still have to follow the law and court rules
Massachusetts recognizes the right of individuals to represent themselves. Courts may provide reasonable accommodations to help self-represented litigants understand proceedings and be fairly heard. But self-representation does not make the rules disappear.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 2025 Judicial Guidelines for Civil Cases with Self-Represented Litigants explain that the substantive law, burdens of proof, rules of evidence, and rules of procedure apply whether or not a party has a lawyer. The guidelines also quote Massachusetts precedent stating that a pro se litigant is generally bound by the same procedural rules as a litigant represented by counsel.
That creates a serious problem for someone relying principally on AI. A chatbot can produce a motion in seconds, but it may not know the local standing order, the judge’s scheduling requirements, the applicable filing method, the precise burden on the pending motion, or the procedural history that changes what should be filed next.
AI can invent cases, quotations, and legal rules
One of the most dangerous characteristics of generative AI is that an incorrect answer can look polished. A fabricated citation may contain a realistic case name, reporter citation, quotation, and legal proposition. Unless the user checks the actual decision, the error may not be obvious.
This is not theoretical. Massachusetts courts have already addressed filings containing fictitious authorities generated through AI. The Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries’ current artificial-intelligence resource discusses cases including Dastou v. Holmes and Smith v. Farwell, where court papers included hallucinated legal authorities. The lesson applies with even greater force to someone without legal training: never assume a citation is real because an AI system supplied it confidently.
A lawyer should verify the law being cited and determine whether the case actually supports the proposition for which it is being used. That requires more than finding matching words. Courts distinguish cases based on procedural posture, jurisdiction, factual differences, later decisions, and whether the quoted language was part of the holding or merely background discussion.
A legally correct rule can still be the wrong rule for your case
AI often answers the question it was asked. Litigation frequently turns on the question that should have been asked instead.
For example, a party may ask for the statute of limitations for a claim and receive a generally correct period. That answer may still miss an earlier notice requirement, a contractual deadline, a special statute governing the defendant, an accrual rule, a tolling issue, or a different claim that should have been pleaded.
The same problem occurs with motions. A self-represented party may ask AI to draft a motion to dismiss when the better procedural step is an answer, an opposition, a motion for relief from judgment, a motion to amend, or no filing at all. Drafting is only one part of legal representation. Choosing the correct procedure is often more important than the wording of the document.
AI does not know the complete record unless you give it the complete record
Lawyers evaluate evidence in context. A complaint, answer, discovery responses, orders, correspondence, transcripts, exhibits, and prior rulings can interact in ways that change the analysis.
An AI system working from a short summary may give a technically reasonable answer based on facts that are not actually in the record. It may also accept the user’s description of disputed events as true without identifying what must be proved with admissible evidence.
This can lead to filings that emphasize facts that cannot be proved, overlook damaging admissions, or ignore an order that already decided part of the issue. A lawyer can review the record, identify factual gaps, and determine what evidence is needed before making a representation to the court.
Litigation is not just writing
People often encounter AI through its ability to generate documents, so it is easy to think that a legal case is mainly a document-production exercise. It is not.
A lawyer’s work can include:
- Identifying viable claims and defenses.
- Calculating and protecting deadlines.
- Evaluating jurisdiction, venue, and service.
- Preserving and obtaining evidence.
- Preparing and responding to discovery.
- Assessing whether testimony is admissible.
- Negotiating with opposing counsel.
- Preparing witnesses for deposition or trial.
- Responding to unexpected issues at a hearing.
- Advising whether settlement or continued litigation better serves the client.
AI may help brainstorm questions in some of these areas. It cannot appear in court, examine a witness, negotiate as your legal representative, receive service on your behalf, make strategic decisions under professional obligations, or accept responsibility for protecting your case.
The judge cannot become your lawyer
Massachusetts judges can take reasonable steps to ensure self-represented litigants are fairly heard. That does not mean the court can act as a party’s legal adviser.
The court must remain impartial. A judge may explain procedure or make appropriate accommodations, but the judge cannot develop your legal strategy, investigate your case, tell you which evidence you failed to obtain, or advocate for the result you want.
That distinction matters when AI gives a party false confidence. By the time a judge points out a procedural or evidentiary problem, the opportunity to fix it may be limited or gone.
AI has no attorney-client duty to you
An attorney-client relationship carries legal and ethical obligations. A lawyer must address conflicts of interest, protect client confidences as required by law and professional rules, communicate with the client, provide competent representation, and exercise independent professional judgment.
Typing information into an AI service does not create an attorney-client relationship with the software. Depending on the service, account settings, and information entered, there may also be privacy considerations. A litigant should not assume that sharing sensitive facts with a technology platform provides the same protections as confidential communications with counsel.
This does not mean lawyers cannot use technology. Lawyers increasingly use sophisticated research and drafting tools. The important difference is that the attorney remains responsible for the legal work, must verify the result, and owes duties to the client.
AI may not recognize when you are about to make a damaging admission
Litigants often focus on telling their story. Litigation requires understanding how each statement may be used.
A poorly drafted pleading, affidavit, discovery response, email, or social-media post can create admissions that narrow a claim or support the opposing party. AI may improve the grammar of a statement without recognizing that the underlying statement should not be made in that form, requires qualification, or creates an unnecessary issue.
A lawyer can ask the uncomfortable questions before a filing is made: Is this fact accurate? Can we prove it? Does the document need to say this? Is there another document that contradicts it? Does the statement waive an argument or create a new one?
Deadlines are especially dangerous for self-represented parties
A missed deadline can have consequences that no later rewrite can cure. Litigation may involve deadlines for answering a complaint, responding to discovery, serving requests for admissions, opposing motions, filing appeals, designating experts, or complying with a scheduling order.
Some deadlines are calculated from service; others from filing, entry of judgment, an event specified in a court order, or another triggering date. Additional rules may govern weekends, holidays, electronic service, and extensions.
An AI answer based on the wrong court, outdated rule, or incomplete facts can produce a precise date that is precisely wrong.
Lawyers provide strategy, not just information
Legal information answers questions such as, “What does this rule say?” Legal strategy asks, “Given this record, this judge, this opponent, these risks, and my client’s objectives, what should we do next?”
That strategic judgment develops through experience and through a continuing relationship with the client. It also involves knowing when not to make an argument, when additional evidence is needed, when settlement should be explored, and when a position should be preserved for appeal.
AI can suggest options. It does not know your tolerance for cost, delay, publicity, business disruption, or litigation risk unless those concerns are fully identified—and even then it cannot exercise professional judgment on your behalf.
Can a self-represented litigant use AI at all?
Yes, but the safest use is as a supplemental organizational or educational tool rather than a substitute for counsel. AI can help generate a list of questions to ask a lawyer, summarize a document you already understand will need verification, explain unfamiliar terminology, or help organize a chronology.
It should not be treated as the final authority on whether a case should be filed, what claims exist, what deadline controls, whether evidence is admissible, or what should be represented to a court as law or fact.
If full representation is not practical, Massachusetts courts also recognize Limited Assistance Representation in certain matters. That can allow an attorney to assist with discrete portions of a case where permitted, such as particular filings or appearances.
When should you speak with a lawyer?
Speak with counsel as early as possible when a case involves meaningful financial exposure, ownership rights, business interests, housing, serious injury, injunctive relief, complex discovery, or an approaching deadline. Early advice can preserve options that may be unavailable later.
You should be especially cautious about proceeding solely with AI if:
- You have been served with a complaint, motion, subpoena, or court order.
- A deadline is approaching and you are uncertain how it is calculated.
- The opposing party has a lawyer.
- You are being asked to sign an affidavit, settlement, release, or stipulation.
- You need emergency or injunctive relief.
- The case involves substantial money, property, employment, housing, or personal rights.
- You are unsure whether the law AI cited is real or current.
AI can assist lawyers. It should not replace one when your rights are at stake.
The best way to think about AI in litigation is as a powerful tool that still requires informed supervision. A calculator can help with arithmetic, but it cannot decide which damages are legally recoverable. A word processor can produce a brief, but it cannot decide whether the motion should be filed. AI is more sophisticated, but the same distinction remains.
If you are involved in Massachusetts litigation and are considering representing yourself, contact Muggeo & Associates to discuss whether full representation or another form of legal assistance may be appropriate.
General legal information only. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not legal advice for any particular case.
Sources and currency
Checked October 16, 2026. Massachusetts sources include the Supreme Judicial Court and Trial Court’s 2025 Judicial Guidelines for Civil Cases with Self-Represented Litigants, the Trial Court Law Libraries’ Massachusetts law about self-represented litigants, and its Massachusetts law about artificial intelligence, including reported Massachusetts decisions addressing hallucinated authorities in court filings.
