ChatGPT Is Changing Who Can Sue // AIDRAN

The pro se surge reshaping Big Law's caseload is not a story about AI quality — it is a story about threshold. The relevant change is not whether ChatGPT produces good legal arguments; it is that the cost of producing a legally formatted complaint is now close to zero. Fisher Phillips characterized this as a new category of adversary: not the practiced courtroom veteran, but someone with a grievance and a browser. Courts cannot distinguish the two on filing day, and firms cannot dismiss them cheaply.

AI Tools Are Rewriting Who Gets to Sue

Free reading limit reached

The Malpractice Pitch That Told Attorneys Nothing They Didn't Know

AI Is Doing Legal Work Faster — and Making More of It

Legal's AI Spam Filter Has Activated — and It's Filtering Signal Too

AI Malpractice Anxiety Meets a Profession Still Building Its Policies

AI Malpractice Ads Have Found Their Audience in Attorney Subreddits

Legal AI Is Winning Its Own Benchmarks While Bluesky Does the Royalty Math

The White House Let Courts Decide AI Copyright. Nobody Agreed on What That Means.

Jack Conte Called Out AI's Fair Use Contradiction at SXSW

Anthropic Settled. That's the Only Number That Matters in AI Copyright Right Now.

Sora's Shutdown Is the Copyright Movement's Closing Argument