Consumer Financial Services Litigation Series - Episode 1: Pro Se Plaintiffs

Artificial intelligence is increasingly changing single‑plaintiff consumer litigation, particularly by enabling pro se plaintiffs to file longer, more citation‑dense complaints more quickly, while simultaneously giving defense counsel tools to assess cases, identify weaknesses, and pursue early resolution or dismissal strategies. In the first episode of this series focusing on consumer financial services litigation, Joseph Schuster and Matthew Morr, partners at Ballard Spahr in our Consumer Financial Services Group, discuss both the tactical opportunities and the professional responsibility/ethics risks created by AI use in litigation.

Key Topics Discussed:

• AI is driving higher volume and “more complete” pro se complaints: Complaints that were once handwritten and sparse are now often lengthy, AI‑generated filings that may include irrelevant material but appear more sophisticated
• Defense “jujitsu” strategy: attack AI tell‑tales early: A key defense tactic is verifying whether pro se plaintiffs’ case citations are real and accurately stated; phantom or mischaracterized citations can support motions to strike, motions to dismiss, or requests for sanctions/show cause
• AI enables faster defense-side case assessment: Defense teams use AI for first‑pass complaint analysis, chronology building, allegation‑by‑allegation factual mapping, claim‑element matrices, missing record identification, and surfacing potential defenses
• Professional responsibility remains with counsel despite AI assistance: The transcript stresses that lawyers must verify both law and facts produced with AI, with courts criticizing parties who submit (or fail to flag) phantom cases and incorrect standards
• Privilege/work product issues are unsettled and fact‑dependent: The speakers describe an emerging debate about whether AI interactions are protected work product, including a Colorado ruling extending Rule 26 work product to AI‑assisted work and (in some circumstances) to pro se litigants, while also noting arguments that public generative AI use may waive confidentiality
• Concern about non-lawyers using AI as “agents”: The transcript flags potential unauthorized practice of law where non‑lawyer companies use AI to negotiate or litigate on behalf of individuals, with anticipated defense efforts to investigate and challenge such conduct

Overall, the conversation frames AI as both an equalizer for pro se litigants and a tool for defendants to more efficiently evaluate, rebut, and resolve claims where appropriate, while emphasizing that accuracy, diligence, and evolving privilege/ethics rules remain central litigation risks.