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.

The global health care sector is under increasing strain. 

Decades of chronic underinvestment and constraints in recruitment have coincided with a surge in demand for services for aging populations. Gaps in provision are already taking a toll, with fragmented access to care and high rates of stress and burnout among staff. And it’s getting worse. The World Health Organization has warned that current shortfalls will increase to 11 million workers by 2030. 

In their urgent hunt for a solution, many health-care providers are now pinning their hopes on agentic AI, with more than two-thirds (68%) having already adopted AI agents into their workforce, according to KPMG. 

The technology is being deployed to automate complex back-office processes, collaborate with medical teams, and even triage patients, all in a bid to reduce the cognitive load on clinicians and improve quality of care for patients as the supply of human health-care workers dwindles.

A different type of digitalization 

Until now, the benefits of digitalization within health care have been limited. 

Many staff have blamed slow or outdated technology for adding to the administrative burden rather than alleviating it. For example, U.S. patient data was migrated to electronic health records (EHRs) in the early 2000s, but this data remains fragmented and reliant on manual inputs. 

New telehealth services and digital care tools, like remote monitors, have had similar shortcomings, says Ashis Barad, MD, chief digital and technology officer at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), an academic medical center in New York that focuses on musculoskeletal health. Both technologies have helped improve access to health care by removing geographical barriers, he says, but they’ve failed to replicate the quality of in-person care or win trust from patients. 

Agentic AI is different from these existing technologies, he insists. 

Rather than relying on manual inputs or defaulting to human workers for any case that sits slightly outside a rigid framework, AI agents can handle nuanced, complex scenarios. They can make autonomous decisions, retrieve information from expert clinical sources, and iterate over time, freeing clinicians to focus on higher-level patient care. As Dr. Barad puts it: “Agentic AI takes your workflow and collapses it, augments it, supercharges it, and makes it more performant.” 

At HSS, AI agents have already been deployed in multiple areas. They handle complex backend processes, such as insurance claims that previously took several weeks to complete and involved both HSS staff and a third-party contractor to handle the volume. Now, says Dr. Barad, AI agents complete 1,100 claims per month. They’ve reduced the appeals stage from 45 minutes to five and improved the success rate of those appeals from 65% to 100% in the nine months since implementation. HSS now handles all claims in-house. 

Building on that success, HSS is now deploying AI agents in non-clinical patient-facing settings with an AI scheduling and triage service, as part of a collaboration with enterprise agentic AI developer Ema Unlimited. The service is accessible 24/7 via web, text, or phone. It uses conversational AI to ask patients clarifying questions about their condition and then books appointments with the most appropriate clinician, factoring in location, insurance coverage, and physician availability. “It completes the whole loop,” says Dr. Barad. The AI agent is trained on “all of our context, all of our rules, and all of our knowledge base,” he adds, providing patients with streamlined access to highly specialist knowledge from world-leading surgeons.

Given the high-stakes decisions delegated to AI agents, the triage service has built-in safeguards—sensitive, complex, or uncertain scenarios are escalated to human specialists. Every decision made by the AI agent is auditable and human staff can step in at any point. Patient data is kept secure and the system is trained on all HSS protocols, policies, and care pathways. By keeping humans in the loop, Ema says its technology strikes the balance between efficient automation, patient-first safety, and human-informed decision making. 

As the technology becomes more prolific, it will be incumbent on providers to ensure they have these sorts of guardrails embedded into systems, says Dr. Barad. At HSS all decisions around the technology are filtered through an AI subcommittee that Dr. Barad co-chairs alongside a senior nursing executive. AI agents that may touch on patient care will be scrutinized with far more rigor than, say, backend processes, he explains.

AI agents prompt systems-level change

For example, Dr. Barad has plans to create a dedicated AI lab at the HSS main campus in New York City—a move that aims to democratize access to the technology across the organization. It will be open to all staff looking to understand or build AI agents, he explains, with informative classes and one-on-one training. “We’re getting agentic AI into everybody’s hands,” he says. This echoes research by Deloitte, which found that leading agentic AI adopters in health care were far more likely to have opted for multiagent solutions, redesigning end-to-end workflows rather than sticking to narrow solutions or individual use cases.

The key, it appears, is to integrate AI agents across the entire enterprise, treating them as a general-purpose technology. As Dr. Barad puts it: “It’s wrong to think of agentic AI in use cases… It’s a general-purpose technology, analogous to electricity.”

In practice, this means health-care providers need to set the right foundation to achieve value with agentic AI. This includes creating a unified data strategy, one that integrates fragmented data sources across an organization to create a single, comprehensive source of truth. In health care, data is often split across multiple departments and providers, each with their own legacy IT system.

In systems that rely on fragmented data sources, metrics often lack standardized definitions too. For example, Dr. Barad says that each hospital he’s worked in has had a slightly different definition for “time to start surgery,” a metric commonly used to gauge operating room efficiency. This level of fragmentation impedes AI agents from retrieving information from different sources or applications and assimilating the tacit knowledge that differentiates them from other technologies.

By creating greater interoperability of data at HSS, patient-facing AI agents can draw from a patient’s clinical care history and existing recommendations from their clinician, combine this information with current symptoms, and decide whether a situation requires escalation before notifying the correct specialist and informing the patient. 

Building better outcomes

For Dr. Barad, the potential for AI agents to overhaul health care and alleviate the current pressures on resources, access, and patient care is huge. 

He envisions a future in which 90% of non-clinical health-care tasks could be administered by AI agents, freeing clinicians up for what he calls white-glove work, meaning the most complex, specialized, and sensitive cases.

Most health-care providers seem equally optimistic. According to research by KPMG, 84% of providers are already comfortable handing decision making about specific processes over to AI agents.

“We’re spending so much time on keyboards and computers right now that we’re actually not doing what we should be doing,” says Dr. Barad. “This is going to rehumanize health care.”

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

This article is from Making AI Work, MIT Technology Review’s limited-run newsletter examining how to apply LLMs across industries. To receive it in your inbox,sign up here.

From accounting to design to market research and product development, there’s a staggering breadth of skills needed to run a business. A large company can hire experts to handle these tasks, but small businesses don’t always have this luxury.

That’s where AI comes in. Today’s AI models do a decent job at these tasks. The trick for small businesses is to understand where AI is good enough and where it’s not.

One place where a “good enough” AI can already be quite valuable to small business owners is in providing secretarial skills and handling basic administrative matters. Let’s take a look at how one private tutor is using it to improve his recordkeeping and free up his time.

Case study

Sam Finnegan-Dehn works in fundraising for a charity, but he moonlights as a math and philosophy tutor for university students from his home in London. Through this part-time business, he can leverage his degrees in philosophy and share his love of the subject with clients.

But meeting with students is only a fraction of the work it takes to be a good tutor. He also plans lessons and finds fresh reading materials, creates assignments, sends invoices, and keeps up with new research—all on top of his regular job. Given these demands, Finnegan-Dehn doesn’t have as much time as he’d like to grow his tutoring roster.

So he’s turned to AI for some help in managing the day-to-day aspects of his business. He says AI has taken on a secretarial role across all of his digital notebooks, where he jots down reminders about his clients’ progress and new readings to keep himself up-to-date. He describes using AI as kind of like having a second memory that helps him connect ideas he’s written down in various places.

While he has experimented with different tools like Claude and ChatGPT, he’s now landed on Notion AI because it integrates better with his tutoring notes, which live across his notebook tabs in the Notion app. Finnegan-Dehn doesn’t use AI to create teaching materials, but he does let Notion AI record meetings with his clients (after getting their consent), and then uses its automated summaries to refine his teaching strategy. For example, if he notices from the AI’s summary that it seems like a certain technique was not helping a student, he may change how he approaches the subject next time.

Beyond this, Notion AI also helps him with goal-setting, drafting lesson notes, invoicing, and generating and syncing social media posts. For goal-setting, for example, Finnegan-Dehn says he understands his long-term goals for his business but not always the concrete steps to build to them. He uses AI to help fill in these gaps. He starts by writing down a “North Star” goal—say, to have a certain number of clients by the end of the year. Next, he asks his AI to generate the steps that he needs to take to get there, given the profile he has built up in the app. Then, he can reflect on the results and choose which tasks to tackle first.

The tool

Notion has been a big player in note-taking software for many years. Its AI add-on, released in late 2023, now has tools that enable it to interact with many other online productivity platforms. There’s an email client, calendar integrations, and a newly released agent. And while this level of access has raised privacy concerns, it can also make for a pretty powerful virtual assistant.

Many of the tasks targeted by Notion AI are less creative and more rote: syncing information across documents or searching through old scribbles, for example. This makes the tool especially appealing to small business owners, who have limited bandwidth, particularly for menial work.

Other companies are developing tools targeted at specific industries. For example, Grandma’s Quilt Shop in Yuma, Arizona, uses Rain, which has a software suite tailored to craft companies, to generate inventory descriptions and pricing for its stock of fabric designs. The owners claim this AI tool cuts the time it takes to list items by 60 to 80%.

There are drawbacks, though, as Finnegan-Dehn described some of Notion AI’s idiosyncrasies as “clunky” at times. And the AI add-on for Notion costs $20 per month. As with all new tools, small business owners should carefully assess how the potential gains and headaches measure up against the cost of just doing the job themselves.

User tips

Consider these points when thinking about whether AI might be able to help you run a business, or make any part of your work life just a little bit easier. 

• Look before you leap. Since LLMs feed on the data you input to answer your queries or complete tasks, you want to give them information in a way that’s convenient for you and for the model. For many of these notebook AI services, this means, for example, using their platform for notetaking so you don’t have to input or upload notes later. Because of this, it’s a good idea to weigh your options carefully before committing to an AI-powered ecosystem.
• Work to your strengths. Think about what skills you lack in-house, and see if AI can either help with training or take these tasks on for you. Just be aware: AI hallucinates and makes mistakes, so think about where accuracy is needed and keep humans in charge there.
  
• AI isn’t always the best tool. It’s okay to use something off the shelf when that’s the better choice. It’s going to be safer, for example, to use existing payment processing platforms like Shopify or Square than to vibe-code one using AI.
  
• Consider using local models for any sensitive information. Our reporting has covered the risks that online AI models have in leaking sensitive data, and there have been many reports about how AI companies collect your data when you ask their chatbots questions. Even if your business doesn’t handle personal information, there can still be some things you’d prefer not to share publicly. In these cases, using an open-source model that makes inferences on your prompts locally can be a great option, instead of ChatGPT or Claude or other proprietary models. Thankfully, some LLMs can now be run off of laptops and small desktops. Here’s how to set one up and start using it.

Sign up for Making AI Work, MIT Technology Review’s limited-run newsletter examining how to apply LLMs across healthcare, climate tech, education, and more.

Pope Leo XIV’s new encyclical on artificial intelligence includes a statement that warrants serious attention from technologists and policymakers: “Technology is never neutral.” Magnifica Humanitas (“Magnificent Humanity”) is a clarion call to all people to act with courage and solidarity as we enter an age already being transformed by artificial intelligence, the greatest change in human life since the Industrial Revolution. As the pope says, the choice before us—the choice AI presents—is one between the Tower of Babel and the rebuilding of our common humanity. 

In the biblical story of the Tower of Babel, humans sought to build a massive structure that reached all the way to Heaven, only to have their project thwarted when God made those involved unable to understand one another. It was a pursuit fixated on relentless growth, divorced from any concern about God’s commandments or the human cost. It resulted in failure and atomization.

The Book of Nehemiah, however, offers a contrasting narrative, in which the rebuilding of Jerusalem after a period of violence and displacement becomes an opportunity for humanity to show its collaborative resilience. As the encyclical puts it, “The city is reborn, not through the initiative of one man, but through the shared responsibility of all: men, women, priests, artisans, heads of households and young people all play a part. It is an undertaking with God at the center, which rebuilds relationships before rebuilding with stones.” 

Is there any question which road we are currently barreling down? And can there be any doubt which we would do well to walk together? 

We are both Catholics, members of religious communities and longtime advocates within the movement for socially responsible investment. Of particular interest to us and that movement is Pope Leo’s point that AI is not some force of nature or hyperrational, ineffable entity. Instead, he reminds us, AI is ultimately another commercial product, one emerging at a point in history when excessive power over commerce and the wider society has amassed in a vanishingly small number of hands. 

It’s a powerful message. It’s also one that institutional investors have been acting on for years. This encyclical doesn’t break new ground so much as ratify a governance effort that’s already underway, led not by states or international bodies but by shareholders. When governments fail to meaningfully regulate, and corporations cannot be trusted to do what is beneficial beyond their own bottom line, people in society still have the power to set us on the right path, and indeed have the duty to do so. 

Around the world, AI systems are being deployed at scale with remarkably little institutional oversight. There is no AI safety board. The US Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over unfair practices but limited authority over algorithmic design. The National Institute of Standards and Technology publishes guidance that most companies ignore. The EU AI Act is partially in force but addresses only a sliver of the deployment surface.

Institutional investors have stepped into this vacuum. Coalitions including the membership of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, representing investors managing over $4 trillion in assets, have spent the past several proxy seasons filing resolutions demanding transparency, risk assessment, and accountability around AI deployment. Secular institutional investors have joined them, treating AI governance failures as material business risks.

Shareholders have called tech giants including Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Palantir, and Uber to account and demanded that AI not be used for acts of violence or other violations of human rights. The importance of this aspect of corporate governance was highlighted tragically in the opening hours of the war against Iran, when AI was used to help identify targets for thousands of missile strikes that killed hundreds of people.  

Investors have also challenged executives at CVS and UnitedHealth Group to ensure that AI not be used to undermine the well-being of patients and quality of health care across the United States. 

At companies including Meta and Microsoft, shareholders have decried the environmental impact of AI data centers, which consume vast amounts of energy and precious water resources, and in turn can emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. 

Within creative industries, investors have challenged the leadership at companies like Disney, Netflix, and Warner Bros. to demand transparency about the ways they are using AI and to defend the inimitable human element in storytelling. 

Soon, with OpenAI, Anthropic, and Grok all set to enter the public markets, we will be able to exert similar influence over what are now all privately held entities.

These actions by concerned investors not only call out misdeeds but hold fast to an immutable truth: that it is wrong to use technology to kill, harm, or oppress people. Every human being has a right to safe and effective health care and the opportunity to earn a dignified living. The stories we tell each other matter and require the human creative spark. 

Investor advocates hail from a range of faith traditions. Some have no formal religious faith. Yet in their informed and tenacious advocacy, all these people echo the calls embedded within Pope Leo’s encyclical and act on its declaration that “it is essential that the use of AI, especially when it touches on public goods and fundamental rights, be guided by clear criteria and effective oversight.” 

Encyclicals mark time. A century from now, how will we be remembered for how we met this moment? Will we be seen as having been too timid or shortsighted to prevent a small group of unfathomably wealthy and self-interested people from seizing ever greater control over the human family’s shared destiny? 

Or will the years ahead be remembered as a turning point that helped us rebuild our common humanity? Let this be a time when people of good will and diverse talents come together through their own magnificent humanity to build a future that honors our Creator.

Father Séamus Finn, OMI, is a global leader in faith-based and socially responsible investing and a priest of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, a missionary religious congregation.

Sister Susan Francois is the assistant congregation leader and congregation treasurer for the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the amount under management by the membership of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility.