The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) by litigants in person (LiPs) is reshaping the civil litigation landscape. While AI has clear potential to improve access to justice, it is also contributing to a rise in unmeritorious and, in some cases, vexatious claims.
Speaking at London International Disputes Week, former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas warned of an “avalanche of legal spam”, highlighting concerns that AI is enabling claims to be generated quickly, cheaply and at scale. This shift is not simply about technology – it reflects a broader change in how disputes are initiated and pursued.
Access to justice: But at what cost?
It is important to recognise the context in which this trend is emerging. Many LiPs turn to AI tools because they cannot afford legal representation or find the system difficult to navigate. In that sense, AI can play a positive role. It can help individuals understand legal concepts, structure arguments and engage more effectively with the court process.
However, the Courts have emphasised a critical limitation that AI is not a reliable or authoritative source of legal advice, and all parties – represented or not – remain responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the material they rely on.
The difficulty is that accessibility and reliability do not always align.
The risks: Flawed claims and systemic pressure
AI-generated material can appear sophisticated and persuasive, but be fundamentally flawed. A key issue is “hallucination”, where AI tools generate:
- non-existent case law;
- incorrect legal principles;
- overconfident but inaccurate analysis.
These errors are not always obvious, particularly to unrepresented parties. As a result, claims may be issued which lack any proper legal basis but nonetheless require a formal response.
The consequences are increasingly evident:
- Increased costs for defendants, who must verify and respond to defective arguments (often these defective arguments can be formulated very rapidly and deployed in quick succession).
- Delay and inefficiency, as courts and parties spend time correcting errors and responding to issues that may not be relevant to the central dispute.
- Escalation of disputes, where AI reinforces a litigant’s position rather than testing its merits.
As Lord Thomas noted, the challenge is not just the quality of claims, but their volume, with technology making it easier than ever to bring proceedings.
Responding to AI-driven vexatious claims
For organisations, the key challenge is to respond robustly while complying with obligations to treat LiPs fairly and proportionately.
A balanced approach is required:
- Early case assessment: identify whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds and consider prompt applications to strike out or for summary judgment where appropriate.
- Clear communication: ensure the litigant understands the risks of pursuing the claim, including potential adverse costs consequences.
- Proportionate engagement: maintain a clear and accessible tone in correspondence, recognising the litigant’s position while firmly addressing deficiencies.
Fair treatment does not require tolerance of abusive or meritless litigation, but it does require careful handling.
Civil Restraint Orders: Controlling persistent abuse
In more serious cases, the court has power to restrict vexatious conduct through a Civil Restraint Order (CRO).
A CRO prevents a litigant from issuing further claims or applications without the court’s permission. It is typically considered where a party has made multiple applications or claims that are “totally without merit”.
There are three levels of CRO:
- Limited CRO – applies within existing proceedings.
- Extended CRO – applies across specified courts.
- General CRO – the most serious, applying across all civil courts.
CROs are a powerful tool, but they are reserved for persistent and clearly abusive conduct. They should be considered where other case management measures have proved ineffective.
Striking the right balance
Used appropriately, AI has the potential to reduce costs, improve efficiency and widen access to justice. The challenge lies in its misuse, particularly where it enables claims to be generated by LiPs without proper scrutiny.
The rise in AI-assisted litigation highlights a growing tension within the justice system:
- the need to support unrepresented parties; and
- the need to protect the integrity of the court process.
For practitioners and organisations, the focus must be on early intervention, effective case management and proportionate use of the court’s powers. This ensures that access to justice is preserved, while safeguarding against the increasing risk of AI-driven vexatious claims.
If you have any questions regarding points raised above, would like to discuss, or are in need of legal advice, please contact the authors below.
