Artificial intelligence enables the DIY spirit. This is certainly clear in the realm of pro se litigants, who with Claude or ChatGPT as their “CoPilot”, can generate passable pleadings and motions, stipulations, and even respectable — if often stilted — correspondence to courts. Eager to keep more of their winnings by avoiding contingency fees, pro se claimants are taking up arms as keyboard warriors in unprecedented numbers.

According to public records, self-represented litigants accounted for nearly 17 percent of all federal civil case filings, up from a long-term average of around 11 percent, in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that this trend has velocity and will result in an even sharper increase as of September 30, 2026.

Professional liability, employment, landlord-tenant, and HOA disputes (to name but a few) are by no means immune to this trend, despite the inherently specialized knowledge needed to successfully prosecute in these areas of law.

Telling one’s story of alleged victimization, in the form of an AI query, can produce a coherent demand letter as well as a rules-compliant complaint. Access to justice has taken a quantum leap forward, one might say.

Defending claims brought by pro se litigants calls for special tactics, and is perhaps an underappreciated skillset, for now, at least. First and foremost, litigating against an unrepresented claimant creates an asymmetric dynamic. What might seem to be an advantage — a trained, experienced, and well-funded litigator facing an under-resourced, untrained, and inexperienced opponent — can, in fact, present a disorienting reality. It may be difficult to engage with the unrepresented opponent by phone or in person. They are wary of speaking directly with “the enemy”, and this can be frustrating as it takes an important tool off the table. Meanwhile, courts show patience and forgiveness to pro se parties to an extent that no lawyer would ordinarily enjoy. And the common economic checks surrounding risk versus reward that all lawyers have in mind might not influence an opponent who has relatively unlimited time and AI’s endless and free arsenal to keep up the fight.

Patience and professionalism are — as ever — at a premium. Losing one’s cool with a pro se litigant, especially in writing, can only lead to regret. The time comes in most pro se cases when the asymmetry flips to favor the professional over the amateur. Depositions, expert discovery, dispositive motions, pre-trial preparation and of course trial, are not for pretenders. Meanwhile, respect your unrepresented opponent. Treat them with courtesy. Your time will come.

That said, there are some pro-tips worth considering.

Serve discovery targeting use of AI: queries, agents, results, drafts, edits, research of any kind. Until there is case law that confers work-product privilege on pro se litigants, what they do to prepare their case, and who they consult online or otherwise, should be fair game. Consider sending a litigation hold-like letter including all online research not limited to AI.

Make full use of all meet-and-confer obligations. Do not settle for an email that simply restates a recalcitrant position. Insist on virtual live meetings (be sure to ask whether your pro se opponent is using AI notetaking or recording). If your request for a meeting is turned down, be sure to document this in email and in your motion papers. There is a limit to how much deference a court will show a pro se party. In the end, dispute resolution requires a good faith commitment by all parties.

Confer with your client and its carrier, if any, about the special challenges that pro se litigation entails. With proper expectations and a game plan, defending against an unrepresented party need not devolve into a frustrating parody of proper civil litigation.