[null0ranje]

I’m assuming you’re talking about some sort of automation/AI that litigants could use. This is a terrible idea for lots of reasons.

Civil litigation is complicated, messy, and situation-driven. Lawyers are expected understand all this, and are subject to sanctions for getting it wrong. Pro de litigants are already behind the curve just trying to navigate this system, which presumes that parties are represented by legal professionals.

The biggest issue I’ve seen, however, is that pro se litigants are too emotionally invested in the process. They start from the premise that they are in the right and fail to make arguments that both advance their case as well as diminishing the opposing side.

Pro se defendants can access attorneys through legal clinics to get help and advice in many jurisdictions, provided by actual attorneys. In some cases, these attorneys might provide representation, but availability and case complexity often preclude this.

Any tools you might create to solve this problem will subject you, the author, to enormous legal liabilities. Many states already consider software that handles the simplest issues as the unauthorized practice of law. Trying to create some sort of AI to play the part of attorney would almost certainly bury you in lawsuits and be shut down by the court.