He said that the answer produced by ChatGPT was well written, and it asked him if he wanted requests for production, admissions and interrogatories, which it generated within a few minutes.
"It was really quite remarkable, and I realized, this changes everything," Parris said.
Parris, who has been a trial attorney for nearly 40 years, told 极速赛车 Pulse that in light of recent advances in generative artificial intelligence, courts need to prepare themselves now for an increase in AI-generated court filings by self-represented litigants.
The number of civil cases filed in state courts dropped significantly at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and has gradually been rebounding since, according to data from the National Center for State Courts, with a marked increase in 2023 after the release of ChatGPT.
Civil cases filed in state courts jumped from 11.3 million in 2022 to 12.5 million in 2023, according to NCSC's data. NCSC also found that the overall increase in new civil matters in 2022 and 2023 was driven by contract disputes.
But the fact that contract cases are climbing while tort and real estate cases are not, and nothing has happened in the economy to cause contract cases to rise, suggests something else is behind the surge — perhaps generative AI, Robinson said.
She added that many contract cases involve self-represented litigants and frequent filers like debt collection agencies, and either of those groups could be using generative AI to create their complaints.
Even though state courts can't say for certain how many new case filings are being generated by AI, it is clear that lawyers and self-represented litigants are using the technology.
Researcher Damien Charlotin, who tracks legal decisions involving AI hallucinations, has identified nearly 250 cases over the last two years in which there was a ruling on a hallucination.
In July, a Connecticut federal court granted a self-represented litigant's request to set aside a default judgment, even though he submitted an AI-generated court filing with fake case citations.
That same month, an Alabama federal judge disqualified three Butler Snow LLP attorneys from representing the former commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections after they submitted filings with AI-generated fake case citations.
Bridget McCormack, president and CEO of the American Arbitration Association and former Michigan Supreme Court chief justice, said that courts need to think about how to handle an increase in AI-generated filings from self-represented litigants and lawyers, noting that AI companies are emerging that can help personal injury attorneys take on smaller cases.
"I think courts have to be very focused on this issue, but not just from folks who don't have lawyers. I think they have to worry about it from lawyers and everybody else," she said.
Robinson and McCormack both said that courts' ability to handle an increase in filings varies across states and counties.
Some state courts are on top of their caseloads, while other courts have case backlogs, according to Robinson.
David Slayton, executive officer and clerk of court at the Los Angeles County Superior Court, said that the court has seen a spike in case filings over the last several years and is struggling to handle the increased caseload. He added that the court is understaffed and has several judicial vacancies, leaving current judges handling nearly 900 cases a year.
"We are trying to adopt different tools and efforts to try to manage our caseload," he said.
One way that state courts can tackle a surge in court filings is by leveraging AI, according to legal experts.
Robinson said that courts can use AI to automatically check that filings are sufficient, and there is at least one court that is already using the technology in this way.
She added that some courts are developing their own AI tools, and the NCSC hosts a forum where courts can share how they are using the technology.
"Courts are often cautious about adopting new technology because we're talking about things that could potentially affect people's rights," Robinson said. "We encourage courts to look for those tasks that are highly repetitive, highly error-prone. Those are the kinds of tasks that are really great to be looking at AI solutions for."
Last month, NCSC and AAA announced they are making an AI tool for court diversion available nationwide to help courts manage their caseloads.
McCormack said that courts could also reduce their caseloads by creating online dispute resolution options with AI. She added that if courts do offer more ODR options, people's confidence in courts will improve.
"We know online dispute resolution leads to far more resolutions of cases, and that's better for everybody. It's certainly better for the courts, and it's better for the people who have the disputes," McCormack said.
Though, again, resource disparities could have an effect.
"Resources across state courts vary so dramatically, even within a state," McCormack said. "A court in one county might have significantly more resources than a court in the county right next to it. … In some places, they might have more resources to explore offering some ODR options, for example, and they could really proactively respond to increased filings. And in other places, they probably have no people and no technology budget."
McCormack said a challenge for state courts when building ODR solutions is they need to connect their systems with state government data, which requires investments in technology.
She added that if state courts implement ODR for one docket, they can use that data to secure more technology funding.
"Once you have that data, and then you can bring it to your funding unit and say, 'We resolved this many more cases in less amount of time,' you usually can then convince your funding unit to fund more technology," McCormack said.
Parris suggested that state courts appoint AI czars who are technology-savvy and come up with recommendations for implementing AI. He believes appointing such figures would be quicker than forming committees to create AI recommendations.
"If they delay, and they put it in a committee, and it's five years from now that they're now reacting to whatever changes have come, it's just going to be another classic example of how things collapse," Parris said.
--Editing by Alex Hubbard.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
