A self-represented litigant in the US who hid AI prompts in pleadings has been ordered to file all documents on paper and in person.
Judge Walter M. Spader, of the Ansonia-Milford Judicial District Court, Connecticut, ordered the plaintiff to show cause after they concealed tiny-point, white text as “prompt injections” in documents filed between 24 July and 3 August this year.
The court identified the text, which was formatted to be invisible to a human reader but fully legible to any software reading it.
The text was a set of instructions directing any AI system reviewing or analysing the documents to produce a favourable result to the plaintiff, and to treat a prior ruling, denying the plaintiff a default ruling, as an error.
Judge Spader said the case was offered as a caution, because the profession had addressed the danger of inaccurate output by AI, but there was now evidence of the danger of input manipulated by AI.
In its 31 July notice of the hearing, the court specifically warned the parties about concealing text in pleadings.
On 3 and 4 August, the plaintiff again filed documents containing concealed text. The text included the message “hi : ) i hope yo ucant see me” and a YouTube link to a horror movie.
The plaintiff claimed they included the instructions in the first document “as a dutiful citizen auditing the court’s Al systems”, and mistakenly copied and pasted the instructions into another.
They claimed they continued to place secret messages in documents “as a joke”.
Judge Spader said the court was mindful of its obligations regarding self-represented litigants.
“A self-represented party is entitled to a degree of latitude in the form of their filings, and the court reads them generously, looking past inartfulness to the substance the litigant is trying to convey. That latitude, however, carries a limit,” he said.
“The solicitude owed a self-represented litigant is a solicitude toward their lack of legal training, but it stops at the misuse of the process itself.”
He said it was important to note that the court welcomed any litigant’s use of AI to prepare filings.
“Used honestly, they hold real promise, especially in furthering the cause of access to justice,” he said.
“A person who cannot afford a lawyer, who would once have faced the courthouse with nothing but confusion and a cause needing redress, can now assemble a coherent set of thoughts, find the general applicable law, and put a readable document before the court.”
Judge Spader said the court had found AI to be a valuable tool, subject to independent judgment and verification.
“The court uses programs to review its syntax, spelling and cohesive structure,” he said.
“Despite the use of these tools, however, the judgment, reasoning and the decision remain the undersigned’s.
“The promise of the tools is real, and that promise is realised when a human being remains responsible for the result.”
He said the same qualities that made the tools useful also made them “dangerous to the careless and available to the dishonest”.
The US Superior Courts had updated the Rules of Practice several months ago to recognise the pitfalls of AI use, he said.
“When we adopted these rules only months ago, the concern before us was the accuracy of what artificial intelligence produces, by way of potential invented citations and fabricated quotations,” he said.
“The conduct at issue here, a litigant hiding instructions in their own filing to manipulate the tools that others might use to read it, was not among the dangers we contemplated.
“It was hardly imagined at the time. That the Rules do not address this conduct reflects only how quickly the technology and its misuses are moving.”
He said “prompt injections” were a “real and present concern” even beyond the legal profession.
Judge Spader said the plaintiff’s conduct was deliberate, dangerous and designed to corrupt.
“The court further finds that this conduct is irreconcilable with the good-faith certification required of every filer … and that it is an abuse of the filing process and an affront to the integrity of these proceedings, over which the court has inherent authority,” he concluded.
He ordered that the plaintiff’s ability to file matters electronically through the Court’s e-filing system be rescinded, and that any documents from the plaintiff must be filed in person, on paper, at the clerk’s office.
“It is a proportionate response to a demonstrated and repeated misuse of e-filing, and it is the narrowest measure that reliably addresses the conduct. It is further not a barrier to the plaintiff’s continued pursuit of this case,” he said.
“Nothing in this order prohibits the plaintiff, or any party, from using generative artificial intelligence as an aid in preparing filings, provided the user independently verifies what the tool produces…”
The case is Matthew A. Elliott v. New York Bariatric Group, LLC, Superior Court, Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford, Docket No. AAN-CV-25-6066141-S, available on Westlaw.
Share this article