She Won an Eviction Appeal with ChatGPT — AI Made the Difference, But Fabricated Citations Threaten Justice
In California, Lynn White faced eviction after falling behind on rent and a jury verdict that could cost her tens of thousands in penalties. She chose to represent herself using AI tools, including ChatGPT and Perplexity, instead of sticking with a local tenant advocacy network. The outcome was dramatic: her eviction was overturned and she avoided a heavy bill. She attributes the win to AI, though the story also reveals a dangerous double edge: AI can produce convincing but false legal material that could mislead a case.
In This Article:
- What Happened to Lynn White: Behind on Rent, Eviction Notice, and a Lost Jury Trial
- How AI Helped Lynn White: Guidance, Strategy, and Drafted Court Responses
- Broader Trend and Warnings: AI-Fueled Wins—and Real Risks of Hallucinations and Sanctions
- Guardrails, Warnings, and the Road Ahead: Access to AI in Law Needs Caution, Ethics, and Oversight
What Happened to Lynn White: Behind on Rent, Eviction Notice, and a Lost Jury Trial
Lynn White was in arrears on her rent and faced an eviction notice in California. She initially lost a jury trial. Rather than continuing to work with a local tenant advocacy network, she chose to represent herself with AI tools to navigate the court process.
How AI Helped Lynn White: Guidance, Strategy, and Drafted Court Responses
The AI helped identify potential errors in a judge’s procedural decisions and advised on actions to take. It also drafted responses to the court, shaping how she presented her case. Lynn White has emphasized the transformative role AI played in her appeal.
Broader Trend and Warnings: AI-Fueled Wins—and Real Risks of Hallucinations and Sanctions
NBC spoke to other litigants who used AI to win settlements, including Staci Dennett, a home fitness business owner in New Mexico. Dennett urged ChatGPT to challenge her own arguments, hoping for stronger, sharper results. She said, “I would tell ChatGPT to pretend it was a Harvard Law professor and to rip my arguments apart. Rip it apart until I got an A-plus on the assignment.” The story also highlights serious risks: case-related hallucinations and sanctions. Energy drink magnate Jack Owoc was sanctioned after filing a motion with hallucinated citations, and a New York attorney was found to have submitted an AI-generated explanation for a gaffe, prompting a judge’s critical ruling. A California attorney was fined $10,000 for an AI-generated court appeal, with 21 of 23 quotes from cited cases found to be fabricated.
Guardrails, Warnings, and the Road Ahead: Access to AI in Law Needs Caution, Ethics, and Oversight
Despite warnings from major players — Google cautions users not to rely on AI for legal advice, and xAI’s terms warn against high-stakes automated decisions affecting safety, rights, or finances — AI tools remain capable of providing detailed legal guidance. Meagan Holmes, a paralegal, notes a growing trend: “I’ve seen more and more pro se litigants in the last year than I have in probably my entire career.” The era of AI-assisted self-representation is here, but it requires careful use, professional responsibility, and human judgment to ensure justice remains fair and accurate.
