Estate and Trust Dispute Center of Ohio

Overview

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is increasingly being used in probate matters by attorneys, fiduciaries, and pro se individuals. AI can help with drafting documents and organizing information, but its use introduces risks that should be carefully considered.

The main concern is not AI itself, but the misplaced confidence it can create. AI-generated documents often look polished and accurate, even when they contain errors or when the person submitting them does not fully understand the document's legal substance.

AI Capabilities and Risks

AI can help lawyers (and non-lawyers) draft, summarize, organize, and refine legal documents faster. It can turn rough notes into polished text, summarize pleadings or court orders, generate first drafts, create chronologies, reframe arguments, and improve workflow efficiency. Used correctly, AI can reduce friction and help lawyers focus on strategy, judgment, and advocacy.

But AI also creates risks:

• Accuracy Risk: AI can misstate the law, fabricate or misapply citations, omit contrary authority, misunderstand procedural rules, or produce analysis that sounds more reliable than it is.
• Factual Risk: AI can alter meaning, add assumptions, omit qualifiers, or convert disputed facts into statements that appear established.
• Confidentiality Risk: Uploading client information into an AI tool may create confidentiality, privilege, data retention, cybersecurity, or access-control concerns.
• Compliance Risk: AI-assisted work may violate court rules, judge-specific orders, disclosure requirements, or professional obligations if lawyers do not review and verify the final product.

What Courts Are Seeing in this New AI Landscape

Courts are grappling with the increasing sophistication of AI output, which, when coupled with AI‑drafted filings becoming routine, is making it impossible for courts to detect when AI outputs are being filed.  Free tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini enable pro se litigants to produce motions that resemble those drafted by mid-level associates, yet these models do not verify accuracy and can generate confident but incorrect output. As a result, judicial concern is growing.  But courts are addressing this concern in different ways.  Some courts require disclosure, some impose bans, and others take no action.

Why Bans Fail

Outright bans on the use of AI in filings are unenforceable. AI is already embedded in common tools like Microsoft Word, Google, and legal search engines. A court that bans AI use in filings but allows attorneys to use Lexis and Westlaw has not banned AI. A lawyer can stay within a court’s ban by simply using Lexis and Westlaw to access generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. A non-lawyer, if they are even aware of any such court order, will weigh their options, take the risk, and use AI, believing it to be their best option.  These bans also cannot keep up with the ever-changing AI landscape, which could cause those appearing before the court to inadvertently violate an outdated order.

What Works

Disclosure, verification, and existing responsibility rules are practical tools for governance. Disclosure allows courts to manage risk rather than chase violations. It enables courts to expose reliance on AI, enable targeted questioning, and allow correction without punishment. Disclosure is practical governance, not leniency.

The Takeaway

AI has become a reality in every aspect of legal practice. The key is not to ban its use but to ensure it is managed responsibly. Maintaining transparency, conducting thorough reviews, and following professional standards are crucial to safeguarding the judiciary and the integrity of legal practice.

If you have questions regarding AI use in probate and other matters or how it may affect your case, please contact a Reminger attorney for guidance.