 |
| Caroline Rogus |
In civil courts across the U.S., it is now more common for at least one party to appear without a lawyer than it is for both parties to have lawyers.[1]
For individuals who are unable or unwilling to find a lawyer, pursuing a case in court can be confusing and overwhelming. And finding accurate information about the court process — what documents need to be filed and how best to complete them — can be just as confusing and overwhelming.
It's true that some resources are available: A court website might offer links to fillable pleadings, for instance, or a legal services organization might provide a "how to" guide to explain the court process to nonlawyers. But an unrepresented litigant still needs to know where to look for these resources, either by clicking through the pages of a court's website or typing the right terms into a search engine.
Offline, few legal resources are community-based, so the individual must find the time and transportation to travel to the county seat or city center, where they are more likely to find guidance on how to litigate a court case and, if they are lucky, a volunteer or court employee to help them complete the necessary forms.[2]
Factor in additional obstacles associated with the high rates of financial insecurity, illiteracy and limited English proficiency among the population of self-represented litigants,[3] and it is understandable why so many individuals have a negative view of the court system.[4]
These obstacles may be enough to dissuade individuals from pursuing a contract or tort claim in civil court. But for those who seek the court's help in resolving a child custody dispute or the breakdown of a marriage, there may be no better option available than proceeding with the court case.
Family court litigants have very high rates of self-representation, even compared to other civil court litigants.[5] To get any kind of relief from the court, these litigants must navigate the often-bewildering process of finding the right form, completing it and submitting it to the court.
Courts and policymakers should thus consider several reforms to make completing and filing these forms more accessible for pro se litigants.
The Issue: Navigating a Court Case With a Form Instead of a Lawyer
Given how deeply personal and nuanced familial relationships tend to be, a family court litigant may be surprised that the form asks for so little information about the nature of the dispute — perhaps no more than a perfunctory sketch of the family members involved and confirmation that child custody or child support is at issue.[6]
And some child custody and support forms presume that the parents are heterosexual or married, suggesting that those who are not may not use those forms or seek such relief.[7]
But ironically, the court demands plenty of other personal information about the individual, much of it unrelated to the legal dispute, such as Social Security numbers, driver's license information, and information about criminal proceedings as well as other civil matters.[8]
Even when seeking relief from obligatory filing fees — which can amount to hundreds of dollars per filing — the litigant is met with demands for highly personal information. Applications for fee waivers require disclosures about the litigant's job history, the identity and income of other adults in their household, details about their account balances, and their monthly expenditures.[9] They may even have to self-identify as a "pauper."[10]
While courts offer some assurances about privacy protections, data leaks of electronic records, including court records, are not infrequent occurrences.[11] For members of marginalized groups who may have already experienced government intrusion into their private lives, submitting such information can further weaken their trust in public institutions.[12]
Lawyers can counsel their clients on how to submit the most compelling narratives to the court or how to protect their personal information, but the unrepresented individual will not have the benefit of such advice. In some jurisdictions, it is an ethical violation for a lawyer to even ghostwrite the answers on a premade form on behalf of a pro se litigant.[13]
As the litigant's case progresses beyond the initial pleadings phase to matters such as pretrial discovery, mediation, settlement negotiations or appeals, there are even fewer supports available.[14]
From the perspective of the lawyerless litigant, it may feel as if these forms are simply setting them up for failure.
Potential Reforms
Potential reforms to address these issues include user-centric forms, administrative relief and artificial intelligence tools.
1. User-Centric Forms
Creating court forms from a user-centric perspective would go a long way toward improving the self-represented litigants' experiences. Courts and policymakers who draft these forms should reevaluate what user information is necessary for filing a court matter and eliminate up-front demands for unrelated personal information.
The forms' language should also be rewritten to preserve dignity for the litigants and their families, eliminating references to paupers and ensuring that the forms are usable by individuals regardless of sexual orientation or marital status.
Such reforms can enhance the litigants' sense of justice and increase the likelihood of their compliance with court orders.[15] They would also reflect the court system's commitment to respecting all court users and ensuring meaningful participation in the judicial process.[16]
2. Relief of Administrative Burdens
Further, courts and policymakers should consider easing other filing hurdles, like notarization requirements or fees. Notarization of court documents is no longer required in federal courts, and has been eliminated in several states' courts,[17] suggesting that the efficiency of court operations is not compromised by its absence.[18]
Applications to obtain a waiver of filing fees should not require notarization, nor should they require that the applicant disclose their work history, medical information or the identities of other individuals in their household.[19]
Policymakers could consider the feasibility of eliminating filing fees altogether for unrepresented litigants, or at least requiring only an attestation of one's inability to pay.[20]
3. AI Tools
Of course, these reforms take time. In the meantime, many litigants have already turned to another user-centric tool: generative AI.[21] Platforms like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude have infiltrated almost every aspect of the internet, and offer users the possibility of free or affordable legal help.
AI tools can complete the court forms for the user or draft court documents from scratch.[22] They can translate documents, too, allowing a user to supply information in one language and receive court-ready responses in English in return.
What's more, they do not require bus fare to a courthouse or a time-consuming search for the right form on some corner of the internet. The guidance they provide is beamed directly into an individual's computer or cellphone.
AI can also inform the litigant about next steps beyond the forms, such as how to file and serve the completed court document, or the kinds of evidence to gather. AI can even prepare users for court hearings by anticipating questions from the judge or potential counterarguments.[23]
Overall, AI tools can make an individual feel more comfortable with the judicial process and more confident in the courtroom.
Lawyers and courts still have a role to play here, too. Some lawyers in private practice recognize there is a market for AI-based legal assistance. For instance, a law firm in Virginia, Burchett & Mroczek PLC, offers a course for unrepresented individuals entitled "Robot Lawyer: Using AI to Represent Yourself in Virginia Custody/Visitation Court."[24]
And court systems are already exploring how AI can improve court operations, including the development of self-service tools for the public.[25]
AI usage in legal matters poses serious concerns: AI hallucinates cases,[26] it is prone to overconfidence,[27] it demonstrates bias,[28] it offers opportunities for deception[29] and it may expose users to privacy breaches.[30] Still, if these issues are resolved, future lawyerless courtrooms may include integrated AI systems that demonstrate both reliability and efficiency.
Conclusion
Accessing justice means accessing the courthouse, but for many individuals, the courthouse doors are effectively locked. Policymakers and court officials should ensure that all court users have the opportunity to meaningfully participate in legal matters.
Unrepresented litigants often have only fillable court forms and little guidance for navigating the legal process. Court forms should be reevaluated for their efficacy from the user's perspective, filing processes should be simplified and courts should expect unrepresented individuals' reliance on AI to increase.
If a fillable form is the best help that the legal system is willing to offer thousands of litigants, AI might be the key they need to unlock the courthouse doors.
Caroline Rogus is an assistant professor at Drexel University's Thomas R. Kline School of Law.
"Perspectives" is a regular feature written by guest authors on access to justice issues. To pitch article ideas, email expertanalysis@law360.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
[1] Caroline Rogus, Court Forms and Court Reforms: Pro Se Litigants and the Limited Success of Standardized Family Court Forms, 58 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 317, 319 (2025); see also Agor, Paula Hannaford and Graves, Scott E. and Miller, Shelley, The Landscape of Civil Litigation in State Courts (October 1, 2015); https://ssrn.com/abstract=2700745 (in multi-jurisdiction study of civil court cases, three quarters of cases had at least one self-represented party).
[2] Some courthouses have self-help centers where individuals are offered legal information about fillable forms. See Rogus, supra note 1, at 353-54.
[3] Id. at 325-27, 334.
[4] See https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2025/08/experience-with-state-courts-highlights-areas-for-improvement (noting that in a recent Pew Charitable Trusts poll, most U.S. adults graded court experiences as a "C" while those with court experience were more likely to give such experiences a "D" or "F" compared to those with no court experience).
[5] Rogus, supra note 1, at 321.
[6] Id. at 341-45.
[7] See id. at 338-39.
[8] Id. at 345-47.
[9] Id. at 349.
[10] Id. at 333-34.
[11] See id. at 345-47; see, e.g., Adam Goldman et al., Russia Is Suspected to Be Behind Breach of Federal Court Filing System, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/12/us/politics/russia-hack-federal-court-system.html; Ganesh Setty, $8.7 Million Data Breach Deal Gets Preliminary Approval, https://www.law360.com/insurance-authority/articles/2387076; Cassandre Coyer, Personal Data of 3 Billion People Stolen in Hack, Suit Says https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/background-check-data-of-3-billion-stolen-in-breach-suit-says.
[12] Rogus, supra note 1, at 349-51.
[13] Id. at 351-53.
[14] Id. at 335.
[15] Id. at 360-61.
[16] See id. at 365-66.
[17] Id. at 358.
[18] Id. at 358-59.
[19] See id. at 347-49.
[20] Id. at 364.
[21] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/ai-chatgpt-court-law-legal-lawyer-self-represent-pro-se-attorney-rcna230401.
[22] Courtroom5, a platform designed to assist unrepresented individuals with civil court matters including family matters, offers help with completing and filing forms for a fee. See https://courtroom5.com/.
[23] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/ai-chatgpt-court-law-legal-lawyer-self-represent-pro-se-attorney-rcna230401.
[24] A law firm in Virginia, for instance, offers a course for unrepresented individuals entitled "Robot Lawyer: Using AI to Represent Yourself in Virginia Custody/Visitation Court." Burchett & Mroczek, PLC, https://www.fburglaw.com/robotlawyer/custody.
[25] National Center for State Courts, Preparing for future workforce needs, https://www.ncsc.org/resources-courts/preparing-future-workforce-needs.
[26] National Center for State Courts, AI & the courts: Judicial and legal ethics issues, https://www.ncsc.org/resources-courts/ai-courts-judicial-and-legal-ethics-issues.
[27] See Schneiders et al., Objection Overruled! Lay People can Distinguish Large Language Models from Lawyers, but still Favour Advice from an LLM, https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3706598.3713470 (noting that AI is often overly confident in providing advice).
[28] Grimm et al, Artificial Justice: The Quandary of AI in the Courtroom at 7-10, scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=judicature_intl.
[29] See https://www.law360.com/articles/2363988/deepfake-evidence-battles-may-exacerbate-justice-inequities; https://www.thepalmerlawfirm.com/blog/wearable-ai-notetakers-and-covert-recordings-in-texas-divorce-custody-litigation.
[30] Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Be Careful What You Tell Your AI Chatbot, https://hai.stanford.edu/news/be-careful-what-you-tell-your-ai-chatbot.