Can a Business Owner Use AI to File a Law Suit Without a Lawyer?

Generative artificial intelligence is changing pro se litigation. Law.com reports that lawyers and judges see more self-represented litigants using AI to prepare court filings, sometimes effectively and sometimes with serious errors. The increase is also causing courts to reconsider their case-management procedures and the guidance they provide to self-represented litigants. 

A business owner may believe, “My company was cheated, so I can file the complaint myself.” But, if the claim belongs to the company, the owner’s AI-generated complaint may create an unauthorized representation problem before the merits are ever reached.

The Seventh Circuit of the Federal Court recently observed that approximately 60% of its caseload includes at least one self-represented party (pro se litigation). AI did not create pro se litigation, but it has dramatically made it easier to produce a complaint, brief, or motion that looks as though it was prepared by a lawyer.

That development is understandably attractive to business owners. Litigation is expensive. An AI application can organize events, summarize contracts, propose legal theories, and draft a complaint in seconds.

But polished writing is not the same as a legally sound lawsuit. For a business owner contemplating a pro se complaint, the first question should not be, “Can AI draft this?” The first question is: Who owns the claim?

 

A Business Owner and the Business Are Not Necessarily the Same Plaintiff

Federal law permits a person to “plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” The word “personally” is significant. The right of self-representation generally allows an individual to represent that individual’s own interests. However, it does not authorize a nonlawyer to practice law for another person or for a legally separate business entity. Suppose a customer failed to pay $100,000 under a contract with ABC, Inc. The claim ordinarily belongs to ABC, Inc., not to ABC’s president, shareholder, or founder. The owner cannot avoid the entity-representation rule by asking AI to name the owner as the plaintiff or by signing the complaint as “President of ABC.” The fact that the owner owns all the company’s stock does not collapse the distinction between the owner and the corporation. The benefits of using a corporation or limited liability company, including limited liability and legal separation, come with corresponding procedural obligations. The Illinois Supreme Court has held that a corporation must be represented in court by a licensed attorney. A corporate officer or shareholder who files and prosecutes a case for the corporation is representing a separate legal person and therefore engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, as the court explained in Downtown Disposal Servs. v. City of Chicago. 

For federal cases in Illinois, the Seventh Circuit has expressly applied the same principle to limited liability companies in United States v. Hagerman: an LLC, like a corporation, cannot litigate in federal court without counsel, even when it has only one member. In practical terms, an owner’s economic interest in the outcome does not necessarily make the claim the owner’s personal claim. Before drafting begins, someone must examine the contract, the alleged injury, the ownership of the property involved, and the applicable causes of action to determine the proper plaintiff.

AI may generate an answer. It cannot make that answer legally correct.

 

Small Claims Court Is Not a Blanket Exception

Business owners sometimes assume that they may represent their corporation in small claims court. But Illinois Supreme Court Rule 282 prohibits that option.

The rule prohibits a corporation from appearing as a claimant, assignee, subrogee, or counterclaimant in an Illinois small claims proceeding unless it is represented by counsel. The rule contains a limited provision allowing specified corporate representatives to defend the corporation when the corporation is the defendant. It does not give a corporate officer general authority to bring the corporation’s claim without an attorney.

Illinois does not treat every pleading filed on behalf of a corporation by a nonlawyer as automatically void from its inception. A court may, under some circumstances, permit the corporation to retain counsel and correct the problem. But the Illinois Supreme Court has also recognized that dismissal may be appropriate when the nonlawyer’s participation is substantial or the corporation does not promptly obtain counsel and cure the defect.

The possibility that a defective filing might be curable is not a sound filing strategy.

 

The Person Filing the Complaint, Not the AI, Makes the Certification

AI applications do not sign pleadings. The Litigants and/or Parties must sign the pleading, and with that signature comes firm obligations.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, an unrepresented party must personally sign the complaint. By presenting it to the court, the filer certifies that, after a reasonable inquiry:

• the complaint is not being filed for an improper purpose;
• the legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for changing the law;
• the factual contentions have evidentiary support or are likely to have support after reasonable investigation; and
• any denials of factual contentions are warranted.

A violation may result in sanctions which could include a financial penalty.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 imposes comparable obligations in Illinois state courts. The filer’s signature certifies that the pleading has been read and that, after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact, warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for modifying the law, and not filed for an improper purpose. Sanctions may include the opposing party’s reasonable expenses and attorney fees.

Copying AI-generated allegations into a complaint is not a “reasonable inquiry.” Neither is asking the AI to check its own work. The filer should identify the evidence supporting each material factual allegation and the original authority supporting each legal proposition. Every quoted contract provision should be checked against the signed contract. Every quotation from an opinion should be checked against the actual opinion. Every statute and rule should be checked for amendments and effective dates.

 

Courts Are Already Confronting Hallucinated Authorities

In Jones, the Seventh Circuit considered an apparently AI-assisted pro se brief that looked polished but contained quotations that did not appear in the cited decisions. The court declined to impose sanctions on the record but emphasized that “accuracy and honesty matter.”

It warned that Rule 11 applies to lawyers and unrepresented litigants alike and that a litigant cannot delegate responsibility for accuracy to an AI system.

The Illinois Supreme Court’s policy on artificial intelligence takes a similar approach. The policy recognizes that AI may improve efficiency and access to justice, but it also identifies concerns about authenticity, accuracy, bias, and the integrity of court proceedings. Most importantly, attorneys, judges, court personnel, and self-represented litigants remain responsible for their final work product and must thoroughly review AI-generated material before submitting it.

Individual judges may also have their own AI standing orders. For example, Judge Iain D. Johnston of the Northern District of Illinois has issued an order stating that anyone using AI in preparing a pleading, motion, paper, or discovery response, including an unrepresented party, must comply with Rule 11, Rule 26(g), and all other applicable rules.

The risk of sanctions is not hypothetical. In a nonprecedential April 2026 order, the Illinois appellate court in Hulvat addressed a self-represented litigant’s acknowledged use of generative AI. The filing included nine nonexistent cases and descriptions or quotations that did not accurately reflect the cited authorities. The court ordered the litigant to pay $3,178 in the opposing party’s attorney fees.

That case concerned an appellate brief rather than an original complaint, but the principle applies throughout the litigation: the human being who signs and files the document remains responsible for the contents.

 

Drafting the Complaint May Be the Easiest Part

A complaint is not simply a narrative of why the plaintiff believes the defendant behaved unfairly. It is a document with procedural, evidentiary, and strategic consequences.

Before filing, a business owner should address at least the following questions:

1. Who legally owns the claim? Is the injured party the individual owner, a corporation, an LLC, a partnership, or another entity?
2. May that plaintiff appear without an attorney? Even a perfectly drafted complaint can be subject to dismissal if the plaintiff is a business entity that must appear through counsel.
3. Has the filing deadline been confirmed? Statutes of limitation may depend on the nature of the claim, the date of breach or discovery, the parties’ locations, contractual limitations provisions, and other facts.
4. Does the contract require notice, an opportunity to cure, mediation, or arbitration? Filing suits prematurely or in the wrong forum can result in dismissal, a stay, additional expense, or a fee award.
5. Does the selected court have jurisdiction, and is venue proper? AI may confuse state and federal jurisdiction, overlook citizenship requirements, misunderstand the amount in controversy, or rely on an unenforceable forum-selection provision.
6. Can each element of each claim be supported by admissible evidence? A convincing story is not necessarily a legally sufficient cause of action.
7. What defenses and counterclaims will the complaint trigger? A pleading may disclose damaging admissions, invite a business tort counterclaim, implicate a personal guaranty, or activate contractual fee-shifting and indemnity provisions.
8. Have insurance and preservation obligations been considered? Filing a complaint may affect insurance-notice obligations, indemnification rights, document-retention practices, litigation holds, and communications with employees and third parties.
9. Is the judgment likely to be collectible? Winning an uncollectible judgment may not justify the expense and disruption of litigation.

AI can produce confident answers to all these questions. Confidence, however, is not verification.

 

Productive Ways for Business Owners to Use AI

None of this means business owners should avoid AI. Used carefully, it can make the early evaluation of a dispute more efficient and reduce the time counsel must spend organizing basic information.

A business owner can use AI to create a chronology from verified records, organize invoices and payments, identify potentially relevant witnesses, compare versions of a contract, prepare a preliminary damages calculation, and develop a list of questions for counsel.

AI can also help turn a disorganized collection of emails, notes, and documents into a digestible, factual summary. That can be useful, provided the owner checks the summary against the underlying records and corrects any invented or distorted details.

Sensitive information requires special care. Contracts, trade secrets, customer information, employee records, privileged communications, health information, and financial data should not be uploaded to an AI platform until the owner understands the platform’s retention, training, confidentiality, and security terms. Original documents should be preserved; an AI summary is not a substitute for evidence.

The most productive role for AI is often to help the business owner prepare for legal advice, not to replace it.

Limited-Scope Legal Review May Offer a Middle Ground

For an individual who is legally entitled to proceed without counsel, Illinois expressly allows a lawyer to assist with drafting or reviewing a pleading without necessarily entering a general appearance. The self-represented litigant remains responsible for signing and filing the document.

A limited prefiling review may be used to examine such matters as:

• whether the claim belongs to the individual or a business entity;
• the applicable limitation period;
• jurisdiction, venue, arbitration, and contractual prerequisites;
• the legal sufficiency of the proposed claims;
• potentially harmful allegations or admissions;
• likely defenses and counterclaims; and
• the accuracy of cited authorities.

Limited-scope assistance cannot be used to evade the requirement that a corporation or other entity appear through counsel. But when an individual is legally permitted to proceed pro se, it may provide a practical way to obtain professional review of the most consequential issues without retaining counsel for every stage of the case.

Use AI as an Assistant, Not as a Permission Slip

AI can make litigation documents easier to produce. It does not make litigation simple.

For business owners, the danger is not merely that AI may invent a case. A more fundamental danger is that it may produce a persuasive-looking complaint without recognizing that the wrong party is filing it, the claim belongs in arbitration, the limitations period has expired, a contractual condition has not been satisfied, or the allegations create a damaging admission.

Before an AI-assisted complaint is filed, three questions should be answered with confidence:

Does the claim belong to the proposed plaintiff?

Is that plaintiff legally permitted to appear without an attorney?

Have every material fact, quotation, citation, and procedural requirement been independently verified?

A focused legal review before filing is generally less costly than responding to a motion to dismiss, trying to cure an unauthorized filing, defending against sanctions, or discovering that a deadline has been missed.

AI is a powerful drafting and organizational tool. It is not a lawyer, a source of legal authority, a witness, or a substitute for legal judgment. The best advice to a business owner is to consult with an attorney who is experienced in litigation matters. 

This blog post provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. The rules governing self-representation, business entities, court filings, and artificial intelligence may differ depending on the jurisdiction, court, assigned judge, and facts of the dispute.