The Rise of the AI-Assisted Litigant in Person: A Growing Challenge for Civil Litigators

For many years, claims involving litigants in person (“LiPs”) were often viewed as relatively straightforward from a litigation perspective. Increasingly, however, the emergence of readily accessible artificial intelligence tools is changing that landscape.

AI has enabled litigants in person to either become, or simply seem to become, significantly more informed about the legal process. Whilst AI-generated arguments are not always legally accurate, they frequently attempt to identify potentially relevant contractual provisions and or procedural rules that might previously have been overlooked. As a result, claims that may once have proceeded to judgment with minimal resistance are becoming more complex, requiring greater time and cost investment from both practitioners, instructing clients, and the courts.

A further consequence of the availability of AI is the increase in interlocutory applications. Guided by AI-generated advice, litigants in person are often encouraged to challenge procedural steps, seek disclosure, apply for extensions, request relief from sanctions, or pursue other forms of procedural relief. Although many such applications ultimately lack merit, they can nonetheless consume considerable court resources and increase costs for the opposing party. In some cases, litigants become embroiled in a cycle of repeated applications which do little to advance the substantive dispute.

One potential means of addressing particularly persistent or abusive litigation conduct is the use of a Civil Restraint Order (“CRO”). A CRO is an order designed to prevent a party from making further applications without the permission of the court where that party has repeatedly made applications that are decided by the court to be totally without merit.

The courts may grant a limited CRO where a party has made two or more applications in the same proceedings which have been certified as totally without merit. Once granted, the order generally prevents that party from making further applications in those proceedings without first obtaining permission from a judge. The aim is not to restrict access to justice, but to protect court resources and other litigants from the burden of repetitive and unmeritorious applications.

As AI continues to become more sophisticated and accessible, we are likely to encounter increasing numbers of well-informed but procedurally active litigants in person. With this, we should remain alert to situations where repeated meritless applications are being deployed tactically or oppressively. In appropriate cases, proactive consideration of a Civil Restraint Order may be an effective case-management tool to prevent unnecessary escalation and maintain proportionality within the proceedings.

Contact our Creditor Services team.