The State of Florida, like other jurisdictions, has seen an increase in pro se litigation over the last several years. One study found a 53% increase in pro se litigation in 2025 compared to the previous average, which had remained stagnant over the last two decades. The most frequently cited culprit for this phenomenon is the rise and ease of access to artificial intelligence (AI) applications.
Historically, pro se litigation was characterized by handwritten filings from litigants who had trouble clearing relatively mundane procedural hurdles, such as perfecting service, listing the elements of their chosen cause of action, and making an intelligible short, plain statement of facts to establish a proper pleading. Now, with the assistance of AI tools, pro se litigants can file procedurally appropriate pleadings and clear these previous hurdles with ease. Thereafter, many pro se Plaintiffs use AI tools to file motion after motion, requiring the defense to review the filings for sufficiency, file responses, and attend hearings. The result is that although a carrier’s or Defendant’s overall exposure has not increased, the associated defense costs can surge substantially. This is especially true in Florida, where the “conferral rules” under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.202, which generally require parties to confer before engaging in motion practice, do not apply to pro se litigants.
Given the rise in pro se filings, defendants should consider whether a pro se plaintiff may be subject to Florida’s Vexatious Litigant Law, section 68.093, Florida Statutes. The law, which was amended in 2025, serves Florida’s interest in preventing litigants from abusing the judicial process. Although Florida courts generally cannot restrict a litigant’s constitutional right of access to the courts, that right does not extend to conduct that constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
Section 68.093 defines a “vexatious litigant” to include a person who “repeatedly files pleadings, requests for relief, or other documents that have been the subject of previous rulings by the court in the same action” or “engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay in any action.” The 2025 amendments broadened the scope of the court’s inquiry by allowing courts to consider a pro se litigant’s conduct in other jurisdictions and federal courts. The statute also permits a court to require a vexatious litigant to post security for the moving party’s anticipated fees and costs, with failure to post the required security potentially resulting in dismissal.
The Third District Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Adams v. Adams further illustrates the tools available to courts confronting abusive pro se litigation. The court recognized the authority to impose sanctions under Florida’s Vexatious Litigant Law, as well as the court’s inherent authority to address abusive litigation conduct. In doing so, the court emphasized that “Florida’s courts are not a playground for people with perceived grievances” and that the constitutional right of access to the courts does not require courts to indulge a pro se litigant’s “bizarre, ill-conceived hobby.” Adams v. Adams, 51 Fla. L. Weekly 1809 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (citing Clark v. Baney, 355 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)).
Additionally, the Florida Supreme Court has responded to the growing problem by amending its own rules to address AI abuse. Specifically, the Florida Supreme Court now requires that all attorneys and pro se litigants certify that legal authorities cited in their filings are accurate. The court also amended Rule 2.515(d)(2) to provide that courts may “impose sanctions for any filing inconsistent with this representation after providing the signer notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Rule 2.515(d)(2) was also amended to specify that “[s]uch sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking of the document, dismissal of proceedings, costs, attorneys’ fees, or other sanction.”
Ultimately, the rise of AI-assisted pro se litigation presents new challenges for carriers and defendants. AI tools have enabled pro se litigants to overcome procedural hurdles that once limited their ability to effectively pursue litigation, often resulting in increased defense costs associated with responding to repetitive or frivolous motions, extensive discovery, and unnecessary hearings. Carriers should therefore be aware of the tools available to defendants to control these costs and address abusive litigation practices, including seeking to have a plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant, scrutinizing cited authorities for AI-generated or inaccurate citations, and requesting sanctions pursuant to the court’s inherent authority.
Cole, Scott & Kissane has successfully defended against pro se litigants in this evolving era of AI-assisted litigation. Our team is available to discuss these emerging challenges and the strategies available to carriers and defendants to efficiently manage pro se claims and their associated defense costs.
Our team is available to discuss the topics written here and ready to provide additional information contained in this article. Contact us for more information.
