What is the Tribunal’s Approach to AI Use by Self-Represented Litigants?

It has been a remarkable month for the Lawtitude team. Following our well-received panel on AI and the Law, bringing together esteemed guests to address students' most pressing questions about how artificial intelligence is reshaping the legal profession. In a discussion with His Honor Justice Woodward, President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), the team explored the opportunities and challenges that AI presents to one of Australia's busiest and largest tribunals dealing with over 70,000 matters annually. What His Honor shared was a candid, thoughtful, and revealing picture of where the judiciary currently stands and where it might be heading.

The Problem of 'AI Slop'

One of the most immediate concerns Justice Woodward raised was the growing use of what has come to be colloquially known as "AI slop", which His Honour uses to in reference to AI-generated submissions that are fluent and authoritative in appearance but substantively inaccurate or legally unsound. VCAT is receiving an increased number of such submissions as self-represented litigants increasingly turn to AI tools to help them prepare documents, draft arguments, and research the law. As a result, the Tribunal is seeing a corresponding rise in material that sounds convincing but does not withstand basic scrutiny.

For many litigants, the persuasiveness of well-constructed AI output can make it difficult to identify errors, leading to the misguided belief that they have conducted thorough legal research. Such reliance upon malinformed research, including use of fabricated case citations or misconstrued legal principles, can conjure serious consequences in proceedings. Justice Woodward emphasised that the Tribunal notes the pervasiveness and widespread use of AI, and strives to encourage responsible AI use rather than attempting to enforce rejection of the technology entirely.

The Future of AI in Courts

When asked whether courts would remain largely resistant to AI or whether meaningful integration was on the horizon, Justice Woodward offered an optimistic view, being clear that there is genuine room and scope for AI within judicial processes and that VCAT, in particular, is actively considering how to move forward.

One development that stood out was the possibility of VCAT adopting its own dedicated AI tool in the future. Rather than leaving litigants and staff to navigate the risks of consumer AI products, an internally developed or approved system would allow the Tribunal to harness the efficiency benefits of AI while maintaining oversight of its accuracy and use by litigants before the tribunal. Justice Woodward pointed to the potential for AI to be offered within the Tribunal's alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes, a context where the stakes of any single AI-assisted decision are lower, and where the technology can be assessed and refined before broader adoption.

Why Lawyers Still Matter

One of the most compelling parts of the discussion touched on a question that has become almost unavoidable in legal education circles, in an age where AI can draft contracts, conduct research, and even simulate legal reasoning, what is the value of a lawyer?

Justice Woodward's answer focused on something AI cannot replicate, humanity. Legal practice, particularly at the client-facing end, demands emotional sensitivity, ethical judgment, and the capacity to understand a person's situation in its full human complexity. A client navigating a tenancy dispute, a family law matter, or a discrimination claim is not merely presenting a set of legal facts. They are often frightened, confused, or vulnerable. That demands a uniquely human response that AI cannot and will not ever be able to replicate.

However, Justice Woodward's concern goes deeper than client relations. He flagged a significant issue emerging among young lawyers: the erosion of legal critical thinking skills. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, the capacity to reason carefully about legal questions, identify the relevant principles, interrogate the facts, and construct a coherent argument, is not merely a professional skill but one that also contributes to the maintenance of the rule of law. If law students and junior lawyers outsource that reasoning to AI before they have developed it themselves, the long-term consequences for the profession and Australian society could be profound.

This is, His Honour acknowledged, a difficult problem to assess. The skill gap may not manifest visibly for years. There is a real possibility that the lawyers of the future will function less like traditional legal practitioners and more like legal technologists or programmers, people who understand both the law and the systems that underpin it in the future.

A Message to Self-Represented Litigants

For those appearing before the Tribunal without legal representation, Justice Woodward's message was balanced and practical. AI can be a genuinely useful tool for understanding legal processes, preparing documents, and navigating what can be an intimidating system for people without access to legal representation. But litigants must approach the technology with caution and clear eyes about its current limitations. AI can still make errors, and the Tribunal cannot be expected to compensate for reliance on inaccurately generated content.

His Honour finished our discussion by reflecting on the fact that the legal landscape is evolving rapidly, requiring the Tribunal to evolve with it. We took away one simple practical message from our discussion with His Honour, use AI as a starting point, not a finishing line, and where possible, continue to seek legal advice if you are planning to represent yourself.