TechBay.News

By Michael Phillips | Tech Bay News

As artificial intelligence tools spread rapidly across education, business, and government, one critical arena remains largely unexamined—and dangerously behind the curve: the courtroom.

For self-represented litigants, people with disabilities, and those navigating complex legal systems without counsel, AI is not a convenience or a shortcut. It is increasingly an essential accessibility tool. Yet courts continue to treat AI either as a threat to procedure or as something that simply does not belong in legal proceedings at all.

That position ignores reality—and risks deepening existing access-to-justice failures.

The Accessibility Crisis in Modern Courts

Courts are designed around an assumption that litigants can:

• Read dense legal text quickly and accurately
• Draft motions in precise legal language
• Track deadlines, rules, and procedural traps
• Regulate stress, memory, and executive function under pressure
• Speak clearly and persuasively in high-stakes settings

For many people, especially those with ADHD, PTSD, neurological disorders, learning disabilities, brain injuries, or limited literacy, these expectations are unrealistic without support.

Traditionally, the solution has been legal counsel. But with legal representation increasingly unaffordable—and civil litigants having no guaranteed right to counsel—millions are forced to proceed pro se.

AI fills a gap the justice system has left wide open.

What AI Actually Does for Litigants

When used responsibly, AI tools help litigants do things courts already expect them to do—but struggle to support.

Examples include:

• Translating legal jargon into plain language
• Structuring motions and pleadings coherently
• Organizing facts, timelines, and exhibits
• Checking formatting, citations, and rule compliance
• Preparing outlines for oral arguments
• Managing cognitive overload and executive dysfunction

This is not “gaming the system.” It is functionally similar to accommodations courts already recognize, such as:

• Extra time
• Interpreters
• Assistive reading technology
• Reasonable procedural flexibility

AI simply performs these functions faster and more consistently.

Why AI Is an Accommodation—Not Legal Advice

A common objection is that AI amounts to unauthorized legal practice. But that misunderstands how most litigants use it.

AI does not:

• Appear in court
• File documents
• Make strategic decisions
• Replace judicial authority

Instead, it helps litigants understand what the court is asking of them and express their own arguments more clearly.

In practice, AI acts like a digital legal assistant—closer to spellcheck, speech-to-text, or a writing center than to an attorney.

Courts already allow litigants to receive help from friends, family, templates, legal clinics, and online guides. AI is simply a more scalable version of support courts have quietly relied on for years.

The Unequal Enforcement Problem

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: AI bans don’t stop usage—they just punish transparency.

Well-resourced parties already benefit from:

• Teams of lawyers
• Paralegals and clerks
• Legal research platforms
• Editing and drafting support

Meanwhile, pro se litigants are scrutinized for any sign of “assistance,” even when the result is merely a clearer sentence or a properly formatted motion.

This creates a two-tier system:

• One side gets human intelligence amplified by institutions
• The other is told to struggle alone—or risk sanctions

If courts are concerned about fairness, banning AI for self-represented litigants moves in the opposite direction.

Disability Law Is Catching Up—Slowly

Disability and accessibility standards have always evolved alongside technology. Screen readers, electronic filing, remote hearings, and digital exhibits were once controversial too.

AI is the next step.

For litigants with documented—or even undocumented—cognitive and neurological impairments, AI can be the difference between participation and exclusion. Denying its use without offering meaningful alternatives raises serious questions about equal access and due process.

A Smarter Path Forward for Courts

Rather than pretending AI doesn’t exist, courts could adopt clearer, fairer frameworks:

• Recognize AI as a potential accommodation, especially for pro se litigants
• Allow disclosure-based use, not punitive bans
• Focus on substance, not polish, when evaluating filings
• Clarify acceptable uses, such as drafting assistance vs. fabricated evidence
• Train judges and clerks on accessibility-first technology policy

This is not radical reform—it’s overdue modernization.

The Bottom Line

Courts are already overwhelmed with self-represented litigants. Expecting them to navigate a hyper-technical legal system without tools is not principled—it’s punitive.

AI does not undermine justice. Used properly, it supports it.

The real risk isn’t that litigants will gain an unfair advantage. It’s that without AI, many never get a fair chance to be heard at all.