# The New Pro Se: Generative AI and the Surge in Federal Civil Self-Representation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29493 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.29493/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 63 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20362/) (2024)
- [The Science of Detecting LLM-Generated Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.07205/) (2023)
- [Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01268/) (2024)
- [Refining ChatGPT-Generated Code: Characterizing and Mitigating Code Quality Issues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.12596/) (2023)
- [Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07016/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are overconfident and amplify human bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.02151/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Since public access to generative AI tools became widespread, federal civil litigation has seen a marked increase in pro se (self-represented) plaintiffs. This paper analyzes that shift using ~2.8 million filings, asking whether the post-GenAI period is associated not only with more pro se filings, but also with detectable changes in complaint text, litigation outcomes, and the composition of pro se litigants. Using civil filing data from FY2008-2025, we find that the federal civil pro se plaintiff rate rose from 11.33% pre-GenAI to 16.94% post-GenAI, a 5.61 percentage-point increase that persists after trend and covariate-adjusted robustness checks. We then focus on Civil Rights and Other Statutory cases, where the increase is especially pronounced, and link case metadata to pro se complaints. Drawing on stylometric AI detection indicators, we develop an interpretable measure of AI-consistent drafting. Against a threshold calibrated to the pre-GenAI baseline, the net AI-flagged share is 13.9% of post-GenAI non-form complaints. Analysis of the AI-flagged complaints shows that they are more citation-dense, disproportionately associated with first-time rather than repeat filers, and geographically unevenly distributed. This composition pattern suggests that AI-consistent drafting is not merely a repeat-filer phenomenon; it also includes a modest, suggestive increase in name-inferred female plaintiffs. We find no evidence of improved win rates; in fact, AI-flagged complaints are more likely to be dismissed and to terminate at earlier procedural phases. These findings raise new questions about access to justice and court screening burdens, and sharpen the distinction between legal formality and legal efficacy.