Pro Se Litigants are Turning to AI
Judges are Facing More Threats
Cyberattacks are Escalating
The Shrinking Talent Pool
What does it all mean for the future of justice?
We’re excited to share the results of the 2026 CourtFutures Survey: Top Trends to Watch. We’ve included the results both by National Association for Court Management respondents and by age cohort, allowing you to see not only what your colleagues identified as the most significant trends, but also where perspectives may differ across generations.
The Top Trends to Watch is intended as a strategic resource, not a forecast. It doesn’t attempt to predict exactly what courts will look like ten years from now. Instead, it shines a light on the forces that are already reshaping courts and the challenges that may become increasingly important over the next decade.
More importantly, we hope it starts conversations.
- What should your court be preparing for now?
- What assumptions about the courts may no longer be valid?
- What should court professionals be discussing with judges, policymakers and funding bodies?
- Are your colleagues seeing the same changes you are seeing?
- Which trends deserve more attention before they become problems?
Recent Updates to a Couple of Scenarios
All the trends identified in the survey are significant. For this article, however, we’ve selected four scenarios for a closer look because important developments have occurred since we released the survey instrument. These recent developments provide a fresh perspective on the trends and, in some cases, make them even more relevant than they appeared when the survey was being conducted.
What follows is just a preview. We hope these four examples will whet your appetite to explore the complete 2026 Top Trends to Watch report and consider what the findings might mean for your court.
Threats to Judges
There was striking agreement across the survey: every age cohort, as well as both NACM and non-NACM respondents, rated this trend as Highly Likely to continue over the next ten years.
The Scenario
Facing rising concerns over judge safety due to threats and violent incidents, judicial leaders and staff call for increased funding to strengthen security, including controlled access, surveillance systems, stronger computer firewalls, and protective personnel.
Recent Updates
On July 14, 2026, Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett made the unusual decision to appear before Congress and ask for substantially more money for judicial security. Kagan told lawmakers that the Supreme Court Police expected a 38% increase in threats against the justices in 2026, following a 25% increase the previous year. Barrett described being sent home wearing a bulletproof vest after a security incident and recounted a swatting incident involving her family.[i]
Will This Trend Persist For the Next Ten Years?
Yes. Threats against judges have evolved from an occasional security concern into a persistent challenge for America’s courts. Political polarization, social media, the ease with which personal information can be exposed, and the increasingly contentious issues reaching the courts suggest that the threat environment is unlikely to return to its earlier levels. Over the next decade, courts will increasingly have to balance transparency and access to justice with the need to protect judges, court employees and their families. The more consequential question may be whether a sustained climate of intimidation eventually affects who is willing to become a judge and whether judges feel equally free to make unpopular decisions.
[i] “Justice Amy Coney Barrett describes coming home with bulletproof vest,” The Washington Post, published around September 6–9, 2024 (referenced via SCOTUSblog’s “Morning Read” roundup for Monday, Sept. 9, 2024).
Litigants Turn to Online Legal Advice
This scenario was first included in the 2023 survey. In the 2026 survey, the overall group assessed it as Highly Likely to continue. The consensus extended across most respondent groups: NACM members and respondents from the Traditional, Baby Boomer, Generation X, and Generation Z cohorts all rated it Highly Likely.
Non-NACM respondents and Millennials were somewhat less certain, rating the scenario Likely to continue.
The Scenario
Websites and blogs that provide litigants with legal advice and court strategies cover an array of dispute types such as landlord–tenant actions, child custody and support, foreclosures, employment, defaults, traffic and parking tickets, and drunk driving. Since then, the number of self-represented litigants using ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, Gemini, and other AI tools to assist in developing their legal documents has skyrocketed.
Recent Updates
A new study by researchers from MIT examined more than 4.5 million federal civil cases and 46 million PACER docket entries from FY2005 through FY2026. They found that self-represented cases increased from a long-term average of about 11% to 16.8% in FY2025. The increase was concentrated in types of cases where producing documents is relatively formulaic, exactly the kinds of cases in which generative AI can be particularly useful. The researchers conclude that the growth in pro se cases is placing additional burdens on federal district courts.[i]
A separate study examining approximately 2.8 million federal filings found that the pro se plaintiff rate increased from 11.33% before generative AI became widespread to 16.94% afterward, a 5.61 percentage-point increase. The researchers also found evidence of AI-consistent drafting in approximately 13.9% of post-GenAI non-form complaints.[ii]
Will This Trend Persist For the Next Ten Years?
Yes. Legal representation is expensive, while AI tools are inexpensive or free. For people with limited economic means and relatively straightforward disputes, the calculation will remain attractive: Why pay thousands of dollars for an attorney if an AI tool can help me prepare the paperwork for little or nothing? ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, and Gemini are becoming general-purpose tools embedded in search engines, phones, and office software. Over the next decade, accessing AI legal assistance will likely become easier, not harder.
A self-represented litigant may understand the facts of a dispute but have no idea how to turn those facts into a complaint, motion, discovery request or response. Generative AI dramatically lowers that barrier. Historically, if a self-represented litigant could not afford an attorney, he or she chose not to pursue their claim. Now they can use AI to file that claim. Consequently, AI could expand access to the courts while simultaneously increasing the number of poorly prepared filings that courts have to process.
AI-assisted filings often contain fabricated authorities and other errors. That means courts may increasingly have to deal with litigants who arrive with confidence but not necessarily competent legal advice.
[i] Shah, A. V., & Levy, J. Y. (2026). Access to Justice in the Age of AI: Evidence from U.S. Federal Courts. Working paper. https://avshah1.github.io/assets/pdf/papers/pro-se/Pro_Se_Automation.pdf
[ii] Cohen-Sasson, O. (2026). The New Pro Se: Generative AI and the Surge in Federal Civil Self-Representation. Miami Law & AI Lab, University of Miami School of Law. arXiv:2605.29493. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29493
[i] Shah, A. V., & Levy, J. Y. (2026). Access to Justice in the Age of AI: Evidence from U.S. Federal Courts. Working paper. https://avshah1.github.io/assets/pdf/papers/pro-se/Pro_Se_Automation.pdf
[ii] Cohen-Sasson, O. (2026). The New Pro Se: Generative AI and the Surge in Federal Civil Self-Representation. Miami Law & AI Lab, University of Miami School of Law. arXiv:2605.29493. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29493
Cybersecurity
The overall group assessed this scenario as Highly Likely to continue, with remarkable consistency across respondent groups.
NACM members, non-NACM respondents, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials all rated the scenario Highly Likely.
The Scenario
Courts depend on electronic case-management systems, online filing, digital evidence, remote access, and interconnected networks. At the same time, those systems have become attractive targets for ransomware, data theft, phishing, denial-of-service attacks, and other increasingly sophisticated threats. The National Center for State Courts reports that disruptive cyber incidents experienced by courts nearly doubled between 2017 and 2021.[i]
Organizations, including courts, move away from automatic internal trust. They no longer assume that users or systems are safe. Instead, they require continuous verification of users, devices, and applications. Limiting access to the minimum necessary to do the job. Strong identity controls and encrypted communications become standard. Real-time analytics and centralized oversight help detect unusual activity and contain threats. Security plans follow an “assume breach” mindset.
Recent Updates
In August 2025, the U.S. federal Judiciary confirmed it suffered a cyberattack on its electronic case management system, describing the intrusions as “escalated cyberattacks of a sophisticated and persistent nature” that were “sophisticated and persistent,” with certain sealed filings now under stricter access controls.
A State Court Report piece adds that attacks in at least eight states over an 18-month span crippled court systems, delayed justice, and cost millions — including Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi, Colorado, and Ohio, with the Kansas attack alone taking four months and millions of dollars to resolve.
The federal Judiciary’s 2025 annual report states that it completed deployment of foundational technology needed for zero-trust architecture (ZTA) adoption in 2025, explicitly defining ZTA as a model requiring verification of every user and device before granting network access, and noting parallel work on multifactor authentication for PACER.[ii]
Will This Trend Persist For the Next Ten Years?
Yes. Electronic filing, digital case files, online payments, remote proceedings, cloud systems, digital evidence and public access to court records are now fundamental to court operations. As that dependence grows, the consequences of a successful attack become greater.
The 2024 State Court Report attacks that forced court systems offline in at least eight states, including Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi, Colorado and Ohio. The Kansas attack reportedly took four months and millions of dollars to overcome. Courts have become attractive targets because they possess valuable information and cannot easily stop operating.
[i] National Center for State Courts. (2022). Cybersecurity Survey [as cited in “Strengthening your court’s response to a cyberattack with planning, training & practice”]. https://www.ncsc.org/resources-courts/strengthening-your-courts-response-cyberattack-planning-training-practice
[ii] Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (2025). Information Systems and Cybersecurity — Annual Report 2025. https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/information-systems-and-cybersecurity-annual-report-2025
The Shrinking Talent Pool
Across all groups, NACM members, non-NACM respondents, and every generation surveyed (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials) respondents rated this scenario as Likely.
The Scenario
Courts continue to struggle with declining applicant pools, especially for specialized roles like court reporters, interpreters, IT specialists, court navigators, and deputy clerks. Interest in public-sector work wanes, the workforce continues to age out, the broader labor market cools, courts shift from credential-based hiring to skills-focused approaches, emphasizing micro-credentials, tech fluency, customer service abilities, and continuous learning to attract a wider range of candidates.
Recent Updates
In a May 2026 report, the National Center for State Courts says courts across the country are struggling to recruit and retain qualified staff. It identifies workforce shifts, generational change, rising employee expectations and competition for talent as major factors. NCSC explicitly says staffing shortages are increasingly jeopardizing court performance, access to justice and public trust.[i]
Will This Trend Persist For the Next Ten Years?
Very possible, but there are significant counter trends at play. A significant portion of the existing court workforce is approaching retirement, particularly in specialized occupations. Replacing those employees isn’t simply a matter of waiting for the economy to improve; courts need a new generation of workers to enter occupations that can require specialized training.
The court-reporter shortage is a good illustration. California reports that 48.1% of its active court-reporter licenses are held by people who have been licensed for at least 30 years, while the pipeline of new reporters remains inadequate.
There is evidence that young workers, including recent college graduates, are facing a considerably tougher entry-level labor market in 2026. The St. Louis Fed found that declining job openings have been the dominant factor behind worsening employment outcomes for recent college graduates, while AI adoption appears to be displacing some new entrants because they are concentrated in entry-level positions.[ii]
At the same time, the overall U.S. labor market isn’t experiencing a broad unemployment crisis. The unemployment rate was 4.1% in July 2026, and initial unemployment claims remain relatively low. The problem is much more concentrated among new entrants and young workers trying to get their first career job.
Your Voice Matters!
We are now in our 14th year, the survey for 2026 drew on insights from 287 respondents, explored several new scenarios, and tracked developments from past years. We encourage you to read the Top Trends to Watch as the results are both timely and thought-provoking. Then share your comments, questions, or ideas for new scenarios by writing to CourtFutures@gmail.com. If you’d like to see the full survey results, including assessments of all 266 scenarios, just email us and we’ll be glad to send you a copy. We look forward to your participation in the 2027survey as we continue shaping the conversation about the future of courts
[i] National Center for State Courts. (2026, May). Recruitment and Retention Guide for Court Leaders at All Levels. Developed in collaboration with the CCJ-COSCA Pandemic Rapid Response Team, funded by the State Justice Institute. https://www.ncsc.org/resources-courts/building-skilled-workforce-modern-recruitment-retention-strategies
[ii] Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. (2026, June/July). How Shifts in Labor Supply and Demand Shape Outcomes for Young Workers. On the Economy blog. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2026/jun/how-shifts-labor-supply-demand-shape-outcomes-young-workers
Court Leader 