Should There Be an “A.I. Exception” to Liberal Construction of Pro Se Pleadings?

The Standard for In Camera Review
September 25, 2026
“MD lawyer scolded for fake citations after past AI issues”
September 26, 2026

Pro se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction.  One court has repeatedly suggested, but not held, that the liberal construction rule should be revisited in the age of A.I.  Hickam v. Chesterfield Co. School Bd., 2026 WL 2861611 (E.D. Va. Sep. 23, 2026)(Young, J.).  Litigants opposing a pro se Complaint that appears to have been prepared with GenAI, may wish to consider Judge Young’s suggestion.

To the same effect, see Almudhafer v. Spotsylvania Cnty. Pub. Schs., 2026 WL 49654, at n. 2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2026)(Young, J.); Almudhafer v. Spotsylvania Volunteer Rescue Squad, 2026 WL 49652, at n. 3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2026)(Young, J.).  Another decision states:

The Court respectfully proposes that the time may be near for an exception to the Erickson liberal-construction rule, where a pro se individual relies on AI to draft pleadings and thus blurs the line between what is a good faith pro se assertion of an actionable claim and what is a computer-generated morass that only serves to waste court time and resources.

Mitchel v. Stellantis Fin. Servs., Inc., 2025 WL 2676569, at n. 6 (E.D. Va. Sept. 18, 2025)(Young, J.).

In Hickam, among other things, the unrepresented plaintiff made a “Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint…, which is accompanied by a 121-page proposed Second Amended Complaint.”

The court wrote: “Based on the Court’s inherent power to manage its docket, and mindful of the requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to which all parties, including those proceeding pro se, are bound, the Court will sua sponte dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Furthermore, the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and direct Plaintiff, should he desire to continue this matter, to submit a proposed Second Amended Complaint that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.”

In part, the court explained that “to determine the viability of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court would have to engage in the improper task of sifting through 416 paragraphs to piece together a cogent timeline of events in order for the Court to assess how each of Plaintiff’s claims relates to each of the Defendants.”

The Hickam court recognized that a pro se complaint is “to be liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In a footnote, the court added:

The Court notes that Erickson’s liberal-construction requirement for pro se pleadings predates the advent of artificial intelligence (“AI”) drafting tools, which are being used with increasing prevalence by pro se parties in particular.…  Such tools both increase pro se litigants’ ability to draft voluminous pleadings and increase the odds that such pleadings contain fractured assertions and “hallucinated” legal propositions, which courts must wade through in construing claims…. While its analysis does not ultimately turn on this point, the Court notes that several of Plaintiff’s filings appear to carry the hallmarks of AI drafting assistance beyond that to which Plaintiff certifies. [emphasis added].

In the Spotsylvania Volunteer Rescue Squad decision, the court added: “[I]t respectfully proposes that the time may be near for an exception to the Erickson liberal-construction rule, where a pro se individual relies on AI to draft pleadings and thus blurs the line between what is a good faith pro se assertion of an actionable claim and what is a computer generated morass that only serves to waste court time and resources.”  2026 WL 49652, at n. 3.

The liberal construction rule has been recently and frequently cited. For example: “When a party is pro se, the court will construe her submissions ‘liberally to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.’” Shah v. Bhagat, 2026 WL 2859875, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2026)’

It will be interesting to see if an A.I. exception to the rule of liberal construction begins to emerge.

This blog was initially posted on  Electronic Discovery Reference Model.

Share