内容来源：https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/06/04/1138391/courts-coping-ai-lawsuits/

内容总结：

AI诉讼潮涌向美国法院：法官面临“机器人律师”带来的权利与责任困境

近年来，随着人工智能技术的普及，美国联邦法院正遭遇一波由AI生成的诉讼浪潮。据一项研究显示，2022年至2025年间，无律师代理的案件比例从11%飙升至16.8%，其中AI辅助撰写的法律文件数量较2023年前翻了一番以上。

科罗拉多州联邦治安法官玛丽莎·布拉斯韦尔表示，她能明显识别出AI生成的文本特征——虽然措辞更清晰，但经常出现“幻觉”案例和虚构引文。她指出，AI确实帮助了无法律背景的当事人更清晰地陈述诉求，但并未提升他们的胜诉率。

麻省理工学院和南加州大学的研究人员通过AI文本检测工具分析发现，2023年至2026年间，含有AI生成内容的法庭文件比例从1%跃升至18%。尽管AI让诉讼文件更易理解，但研究证实，无律师代理的当事人败诉率依然远高于有律师代理者。

法律界的争议焦点：聊天机器人是否享有“律师-客户特权”？

康涅狄格州联邦治安法官威廉·加芬克尔提出，人们与提供法律建议的聊天机器人的对话是否应像与律师的对话一样受法律保护？目前各法院意见不一：今年2月，密歇根州一家联邦法院裁定，当事人与ChatGPT的对话受“工作成果”保护；而同一天，纽约一家联邦法院却裁定，被告使用Claude生成的文件不享有特权，因为AI公司可能向第三方披露用户数据。

3月，布拉斯韦尔法官裁决，无律师代理者使用聊天机器人的行为不应被法庭禁止，但法院对此问题仍存在分歧。

AI法律责任的灰色地带：谁为“无执照行医”的聊天机器人买单？

加州联邦治安法官艾莉森·戈达德发现，许多当事人依赖ChatGPT评估案件价值，结果频频出错。例如，一名在商店滑倒的原告竟索要70万美元赔偿，远高于案件实际价值。法官不得不像“法律版谷歌医生”一样向当事人解释，AI的建议不可靠。

更严峻的是，日本生命保险公司已起诉OpenAI，指控ChatGPT无证提供法律服务，帮助一名女性重新起诉已和解的案件，导致法庭被“轻率诉讼”淹没。OpenAI则辩称，ChatGPT并非人类，不具备法律知识或技能。该案仍在审理中。

目前，纽约州已提出法案禁止聊天机器人冒充律师，国会也提交了多项禁止AI冒充专业人士的法案，但均未取得实质进展。

“AI律师”的利与弊：门槛降低，但风险犹存

尽管AI无法替代真正的律师，但许多当事人仍愿意冒险使用。布拉斯韦尔法官观察到，现在无律师代理的当事人能自信地回答法庭问题，因为他们已预先与聊天机器人模拟过。她感慨道：“司法系统确实复杂难行，但AI至少让这个过程变得不那么令人望而生畏。”

中文翻译：

法院如何应对AI生成诉讼的激增
法官们正在思考，当聊天机器人代替律师时，它们应享有哪些权利和承担哪些义务。

在科罗拉多州联邦治安法官玛丽扎·布拉斯韦尔的办公室里，她大部分时间都在翻阅由非律师人员撰写的成堆文件。这些人中，许多无力聘请律师，另一些人的案件则太过薄弱或琐碎，难以引起律师的兴趣。她仔细阅读每一份文件，深知独自走进法庭是多么令人望而生畏。

最近，与美国各地的许多法官一样，她注意到此类诉讼提交量显著增加。根据一项针对2005年至2026年间450万起联邦民事案件的新研究，由当事人自己代理的诉讼比例从2022年的11%上升至2025年的16.8%。在这些案件中，诉讼提交量较2023年前的水平增长了一倍以上。

布拉斯韦尔法官将这一增长归因于人工智能。

她说：“我确实将这与AI联系起来，部分原因是我看到了AI的使用。”作为一名精通技术的法官，她使用AI来审核法院文件，并学会了识别大语言模型的写作风格。她能从行文中，有时还能从虚构的案例和伪造的引语中辨别出来。

她说：“实际上，我也确实看到了更精心起草的诉讼状。”

但尽管AI似乎扩大了诉诸司法的途径，它似乎并未提高人们胜诉的几率。法官们也开始质疑，当大语言模型扮演律师角色时，它们应承担何种权利和责任。例如，他们提出，聊天机器人是否有义务像人类律师一样提供良好的建议。在美国，越来越多的立法者开始思考，当聊天机器人提供糟糕的法律建议时，应由谁来承担后果。

AI为诉讼注入动力

为了测试AI是否推动了非律师人员提起的诉讼增加，该研究的作者——麻省理工学院的阿南德·沙阿和南加州大学的约书亚·莱维——通过商业AI文本检测器Pangram对1600份随机抽样的法院文件进行了分析。被标记为包含AI生成内容的文件比例从2023年的1%上升至2026年的18%。

对布拉斯韦尔法官来说，这并不一定值得担忧。尽管AI辅助诉讼的激增可能增加了他们的工作量，但她和许多其他法官发现这些案件更容易裁决，因为AI帮助没有法律培训的人更好地阐述论点。

众所周知，非律师人员撰写的法院文件难以解读。有些是以近乎胡言乱语的潦草手写形式提交的，法官需要花时间才能破译。尽管内容晦涩，但法官被要求以善意态度阅读。

如今，布拉斯韦尔法官处理AI起草的动议比处理当事人自己写的动议更快。她说：“我必须非常小心，因为其中一些包含幻觉和错误，但总体而言，有了AI的辅助，我比没有它时更能理解他们的论点。”

更清晰的诉状让布拉斯韦尔法官能更好地倾听他们的诉求。她说：“如果我能稍微更好地理解一个论点，我可能就能多提供一点帮助。”

线上社区正在兴起，交流使用AI起诉的自助指南。2024年12月，Reddit上一条热帖指导移民申请人就申请审查延迟起诉美国公民及移民服务局：使用Microsoft Copilot起草一份执行令状，支付150美元请律师润色，然后在便捷的佛蒙特州地区法院提交。在佛蒙特州，非律师人员提起的案件从2022年前每年约45起增至2024年的1100多起。

即便如此，研究显示，没有律师的人相比有律师的人胜诉的可能性要小得多，即使有了AI，这种情况也未改变。

莱维说：“事实证明，提起诉讼是一项复杂、多层面的任务。并非所有环节都只是起草文本。”

聊天机器人与客户特权

联邦治安法官威廉·加芬克尔在康涅狄格州任职三十载，思考过关于律师与客户关系的各种问题。最近，他在思考，人们与提供法律建议的聊天机器人的对话是否应像与律师的对话一样享有特权。

他说：“你可以提出一个有力论点，即……与Claude或ChatGPT或Grok等大语言模型的对话应得到一定保护。”

法院开始处理这个问题。今年2月，密歇根州一家联邦法院裁定，一名自诉人与ChatGPT的对话内容用于准备她的案件，属于工作成果——即受保护免于向对方披露的法律工作。

该裁决作出同日，纽约一家联邦法院认为，一名刑事被告使用Claude生成的文件不属于享有特权的律师-客户对话或工作成果。法院认为，Claude不是律师，用户与它的交流中“对其沟通内容没有合理的保密预期”，因为AI公司可能向第三方披露用户数据。

今年3月，布拉斯韦尔法官裁定，自诉人使用聊天机器人应不受限制。她写道：“确实，像ChatGPT、Claude、Gemini等AI系统……会收集用户数据进行训练和其他目的。但这……并未消除所有隐私预期。”此后，法院在此问题上仍存在分歧。

无脉搏的医疗事故

一些法官还在思考，聊天机器人是否像律师一样有义务提供良好的法律建议。加利福尼亚州联邦治安法官艾莉森·戈达德注意到，非律师人员在和解谈判中尝试评估案件价值时，常常从ChatGPT那里得到错误建议。在一个案例中，一名在商店滑倒的原告向商店索赔70万美元，这远超案件实际价值。

戈达德法官问道：“你从哪里得到70万美元的想法？你是不是用了ChatGPT？”原告含糊地回答：“呃……”随后，她向该人阐释了法律，解释ChatGPT为何错误，并建议了一个较低金额。她说：“这就像‘谷歌医生’读了法学院一样。”

接下来是聊天机器人犯错时谁应承担责任的问题。今年3月，日本生命保险公司起诉OpenAI，指控ChatGPT在无执照的情况下执业法律，并帮助一名女性重新提起已和解的诉讼，向法院提交了大量无聊的诉状。诉讼称：“ChatGPT不是律师。”

今年5月，OpenAI要求法院驳回此案，辩称ChatGPT并未执业法律。OpenAI在提交的文件中称：“ChatGPT不是人，既不拥有也不使用任何法律知识或技能。”此案仍在法院审理中。

美国各州已开始权衡立法，要求AI公司在其聊天机器人提供糟糕法律建议时承担责任。纽约今年3月提出一项法案，禁止聊天机器人冒充律师，即使它们通知用户用户正在与聊天机器人互动。在国会，已提出一系列法案，禁止聊天机器人冒充律师、医生及其他持证专业人士。这些法案尚未取得进展。

目前，人们将继续求助于AI作为自己的律师。对许多人而言，收益大于风险。不久前，当布拉斯韦尔法官问自诉人为什么想要某份特定证据时，他们怯生生地含糊其辞。如今，他们自信地回答她的问题，因为已与聊天机器人进行过演练。

她说：“这是一个非常难以驾驭的系统。不过，有了AI，它变得稍微简单了一些。”

深度探索
人工智能
想了解AI的当前状况吗？请看这些图表。
根据斯坦福大学2026年AI指数，AI正在飞速发展，我们难以跟上步伐。
2026年AI领域最重要的10件事
《麻省理工科技评论》对2026年AI领域的10项技术、新兴趋势、大胆理念和强大动向的权威概述。
马斯克对奥特曼第一周：埃隆·马斯克称自己被骗，警告AI可能害死我们所有人，并承认xAI提炼了OpenAI的模型
马斯克保持冷静，OpenAI的律师用尖锐问题猛烈质询他起诉公司的动机。
美国一个面向基督徒的新手机网络旨在屏蔽色情和性别相关内容
该手机套餐将于下周在T-Mobile网络上推出，对在线安全采取核武级别的方法。
保持联系
获取最新更新
来自《麻省理工科技评论》
发现特别优惠、头条新闻、即将举办的活动等更多内容。

英文来源：

How courts are coping with a flood of AI-generated lawsuits
Judges are wondering what rights and duties chatbots should have as they stand in for lawyers.
Most days in her chambers, Judge Maritza Braswell, a federal magistrate judge in Colorado, sifts through stacks of documents written by people without a lawyer. Many of them can’t afford to hire a lawyer, and others have cases too weak or too small to interest one. She reads each one carefully, mindful of how daunting it is to walk into the courtroom alone.
Lately, like many judges across the US, she has seen a noticeable uptick in such filings. According to a new study that examined 4.5 million federal civil cases from 2005 to 2026, the share of lawsuits brought by self-represented people increased from 11% in 2022 to 16.8% in 2025. Within those cases, the number of filings made more than doubled from pre-2023 levels.
Judge Braswell puts that jump down to AI.
“I do correlate that to AI in part because I see AI use,” she says. As a tech-savvy judge who uses AI to vet court documents, she’s learned to recognize how large language models write. She can tell from the prose and at times, hallucinated cases and fabricated quotes.
“I’m also actually seeing better-drafted pleadings,” she says.
But while AI appears to be expanding access to justice, it doesn’t seem to be improving people’s chances of winning. Judges are also starting to question what kinds of rights and responsibilities large language models should bear as they step into lawyers’ shoes. For example, they ask whether a chatbot has a duty to provide good advice, as a human lawyer does. And a growing number of lawmakers across the US are starting to grapple with who should pay the price when chatbots dish out bad legal advice.
AI supercharges lawsuits
To test whether AI was driving the increase in lawsuits filed by people without a lawyer, the authors of the study, Anand Shah at MIT and Joshua Levy at the University of Southern California, ran 1,600 randomly sampled court documents through Pangram, a commercial AI-text detector. The share flagged as containing AI-generated writing rose from 1% in 2023 to 18% in 2026.
To Judge Braswell, that’s not necessarily a cause for concern. While the surge of AI-assisted filings might be adding to their workloads, she and many other judges find the cases easier to rule on because AI is helping people without legal training better articulate their arguments.
Court documents written by people without lawyers are notoriously hard to decipher. Some arrive as handwritten scrawls bordering on gibberish that judges take a while to decode. However cryptic, judges are required to read them charitably.
These days, Judge Braswell has been churning through motions drafted by AI faster than the ones written by the litigants. “I have to be really careful because some of them contain hallucinations and errors, but I can generally understand what they’re arguing better with AI assistance from them than without it,” she says.
The clearer filings let Judge Braswell hear them better. “If I understand an argument a little bit better, I’m probably going to be able to help a little bit more,” she says.
Online communities are springing up to trade self-help guides on using AI to sue. In December 2024, a viral Reddit post walked immigration applicants through suing the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services over delayed review of their applications: draft a writ of mandamus with Microsoft Copilot, pay a lawyer $150 to polish it, and file in the expedient District of Vermont. Cases filed by people without lawyers in Vermont rose from about 45 a year before 2022 to more than 1,100 in 2024.
Even so, people without lawyers are far more likely to lose their case than people with lawyers, and that’s not changing even with the addition of AI, the study found.
“It turns out that mounting a lawsuit is a complex, multifaceted task. Not all of it is just drafting text,” says Levy.
Chatbot-client privilege
Judge William Garfinkel, a federal magistrate judge in Connecticut, has served on the bench for three decades, pondering all sorts of questions about lawyers’ relationship with their clients. Lately, he has been wondering whether people’s conversations with chatbots dispensing legal advice should be privileged, the way their conversations with lawyers are.
“You can make a good argument that … conversations with large language models like Claude or ChatGPT or Grok should deserve some protection,” he says.
Courts are starting to grapple with this question. In February, a federal court in Michigan ruled that a self-represented person’s conversations with ChatGPT to prepare her case were work product—legal work that is shielded from the opposing side.
The decision came on the same day a federal court in New York held that documents a criminal defendant had generated using Claude were not privileged attorney-client conversations or work product. The court argued that Claude is not an attorney and that a user has no “reasonable expectation of confidentiality in his communication” with it because AI companies can disclose user data to third parties.
In March, Judge Braswell ruled that a self-represented person’s use of a chatbot should stay off limits. “It is true that AI systems like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and others … collect user data for training and other purposes. But … that does not eliminate all expectations of privacy,” she wrote. Courts have since remained split on the issue.
Malpractice without a pulse
Some judges are also wondering whether a chatbot, like a lawyer, has a duty to provide good legal advice. Judge Allison Goddard, a federal magistrate judge in California, has noticed that people without lawyers often get the wrong advice from ChatGPT when trying to assess the value of their case during settlement negotiations. In one case, a plaintiff who slipped and fell in a store asked for $700,000 from the store, which was wildly more than the case was worth.
“Where are you getting the idea that you’re getting $700,000? Did you go to ChatGPT?” Judge Goddard asked. “Well …” the plaintiff mumbled. She then walked the person through the law to explain why ChatGPT was wrong and suggested a lower amount. “It’s like Dr. Google went to law school,” she says.
Then there’s the question of who’s liable when a chatbot makes such mistakes. In March, Nippon Life Insurance Company sued OpenAI alleging that ChatGPT practiced law without a license and helped a woman reopen a lawsuit that was already settled, flooding the court with frivolous filings. “ChatGPT is not an attorney,” the lawsuit said.
In May, OpenAI asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that ChatGPT does not practice law. “ChatGPT is not a person and neither has nor uses any degree of legal knowledge or skill,” OpenAI said in its filing. The case is still pending before the court.
States have started to weigh legislation that would hold AI companies liable when their chatbots offer bad legal advice. New York introduced a bill in March that would bar chatbots from impersonating lawyers, even if they notify users that they are interacting with chatbots. In Congress, a series of bills have been proposed to ban chatbots from posing as lawyers, doctors, and other licensed professionals. The bills have yet to gain traction.
For now, people will continue turning to AI to be their lawyer. For many of them, the rewards outweigh the risks. Not long ago, when Judge Braswell asked self-represented litigants why they wanted a particular piece of evidence, they mumbled timidly. Now, they answer her questions confidently, having rehearsed with a chatbot.
“This is a really tough system to navigate. With AI, though, it gets a little less complex,” she says.
Deep Dive
Artificial intelligence
Want to understand the current state of AI? Check out these charts.
According to Stanford’s 2026 AI Index, AI is sprinting, and we’re struggling to keep up.
10 Things That Matter in AI Right Now
MIT Technology Review's authoritative overview of the 10 technologies, emerging trends, bold ideas, and powerful movements in AI in 2026.
Musk v. Altman week 1: Elon Musk says he was duped, warns AI could kill us all, and admits that xAI distills OpenAI’s models
Musk kept his cool, and OpenAI’s lawyer bulldozed him with piercing questions about his motivations for suing the company.
A new US phone network for Christians aims to block porn and gender-related content
Launching next week on T-Mobile's network, the cell plan takes a nuclear approach to online safety.
Stay connected
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.