Georgia Pro Se Litigant Uses AI in Breach of Contract Trial

• A pro se litigant used artificial intelligence to aid him in his breach of contract trial at the Georgia State-wide Business Court.
• 61% of federal complaints filed with AI were dismissed, compared to 54% without AI.
• The use of AI in this trial has created procedural obstacles for the litigant, including difficulty organizing exhibits and presenting evidence.
• Lawyers should be aware of the potential risks and benefits of using AI in their clients' cases.

This trend suggests that while AI may be helpful in navigating the complexities of litigation, it can also create procedural obstacles for litigants.

A pro se litigant, Daniel Jensen, used artificial intelligence to aid him in his breach of contract trial at the Georgia State-wide Business Court. Jensen's case against Ian Aros-Ponton, a THC product retailer, began with opening statements on Monday. The use of AI in this trial is notable, as it has been reported that 61% of federal complaints filed with AI were dismissed, compared to 54% without AI. This trend suggests that while AI may be helpful in navigating the complexities of litigation, it can also create procedural obstacles for litigants.

The use of AI in this trial is not without controversy. In September, Judge William Grady Hamrick found '13 inaccurate or misleading citations' in Jensen's briefs and ordered the parties to disclose any future use of AI. This ruling highlights the need for litigants to carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of using AI in their cases. Furthermore, the fact that Jensen's filings have been accompanied by forms citing his use of Anthropic's Claude and OpenAI's ChatGPT raises questions about the role of these tools in the litigation process.

The use of AI in this trial has significant implications for lawyers and litigants alike. While AI may be able to provide valuable assistance in navigating complex legal procedures, it can also create difficulties in organizing exhibits and presenting evidence. As Jensen's case demonstrates, the use of AI can lead to procedural obstacles that may impact a client's case. Lawyers should be aware of these potential pitfalls and consider carefully whether using AI is in their clients' best interests.

Lawyers should be aware that using AI to navigate a trial can lead to procedural obstacles, such as difficulty organizing exhibits and presenting evidence, which may impact their clients' cases.

Source: Original reporting via Law.com